{"took":266,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":31,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13944507","_score":15.3822975,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint follow up Product : Dlebt Collection Type : Credit card debt Issue : Attempts to collect debt not owed Identity theft Narrative/ What happened?\n\nI am filing this complaint to formally dispute a fraudulent debt that is being reported under my name. The account in question is a Kohls store credit card ( Account # : XXXX ), issued and managed by Capital One. I have never opened or authorized this account, and I have strong evidence that it is the result of identity theft. \n\nUpon discovering this account on my credit reports, I initiated a full investigation. I contacted the original bank, which confirmed that the account was opened without verifying the identity of the applicant and that it had been sold or transferred to a third-party collection agency. Despite repeated efforts, neither Capital One nor the collection agency has provided any documentation bearing my signature or showing that I authorized the account. \n\nI have taken the following actions : Filed a police report for identity theft. \n\nSubmitted a FTC Identity Theft Affidavit. \n\nDisputed the account with all three major credit bureaus filed to OCC Sent a written demand for validation of the debt, including a request for the full account number, original application, and signed documentation. \n\n\nDespite these efforts, the account continues to appear on my credit reports, causing harm to my credit profile. My prior CFPB complaint ( # XXXX ) was closed after the company claimed it was not responsible, but the account still exists and has not been resolved or Removed Desired Resolution : > I request the CFPB assist in compelling Capital One ( Kohls ) or the third-party debt collector currently reporting this account to : 1. Provide full validation, including original application and documents signed by me, or 2. Immediately delete this fraudulent account from all three major credit bureaus XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX ). \n\nI also request investigation into the original banks failure to verify the identity of the individual who opened the account, and their negligence in selling an unverified debt to a third party.\n\nCompany You're Complaining About : > Capital One Bank ( USA ), N.A.\n\n( Include the name of the debt collector as a second company if it's on your credit report )","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-18T16:56:02.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"019XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13944507","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-06-06T11:11:00.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Disputed</em> the account with all three <em>major</em> credit bureaus filed to OCC <em>Sent</em> a written demand for validation of the debt, including a request for the full account number, original application, and signed documentation. \n\n\nDespite these efforts, the account continues to appear on my credit reports, causing harm to my credit profile."]},"sort":[15.3822975,"13944507"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14923262","_score":12.341137,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against LVNV Funding LLC because they are persistently reporting unverifiable, incomplete, and potentially re-aged debt information to all three major credit reporting agencies ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX causing significant financial harm, including the recent denial of a loan. \n\nMy credit reports dated XX/XX/2025, show two collection accounts from LVNV Funding LLC ( Account # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Both accounts consistently show outstanding balances but no history of payments, terms, or contact data. They appear to be stale debt with no verifiable activity. My reports also include narrative codes indicating 'Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ), ' yet they continue to be reported as collections. \n\nIn XX/XX/2025 ( please insert the exact date of your letter if you have it ), I sent a formal Debt Validation Request to LVNV Funding LLC regarding account # XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. - Account # XXXX ), which is associated with the LVNV accounts on my credit report. In this letter, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692g, I formally requested crucial documentation to validate the debt, including : A copy of the original signed contract or agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, bearing my signature. \n\nA complete payment history of the account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nA copy of the assignment contract or other legal document demonstrating that LVNV Funding LLC has the legal right to collect this debt. \n\nLVNV Funding LLC 's license to collect debts in California. \n\nI also requested that they cease all collection activities, including credit reporting, until validation was provided. I explicitly stated that if the debt could not be validated, it must be removed from my credit report. I furthermore invoked my right to arbitration for this matter and requested validation for any other debts LVNV Funding LLC and/or XXXX XXXX XXXX might be attempting to collect from me.\n\nDespite sending this formal Debt Validation Request, LVNV Funding LLC has failed to provide the requested validation, and these accounts continue to be reported on my credit file. Their continued reporting of these accounts as collections, despite my explicit consumer disputes and unanswered debt validation request, indicates that these disputes remain unresolved and that they are failing to adequately verify the underlying debt as required by the FCRA. The persistent presence of these unverified collection accounts caused me demonstrable financial harm, as I was recently denied a loan due to their negative impact. \n\nOn XX/XX/2025, I also filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding these ongoing credit reporting errors, including these LVNV Funding accounts. Despite that formal complaint and my direct debt validation request, the inaccurate and unverified collection accounts persist on my credit reports.\n\nDue to LVNV Funding LLC 's persistent failure to rectify these critical errors, provide validation, and remove these unverified debts, even after my direct validation request and a prior CFPB complaint, I am also escalating this matter to the California Attorney General for remedy.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-28T20:31:33.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"951XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14923262","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2025-07-28T20:24:46.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My reports also include <em>narrative</em> codes indicating 'Account information <em>disputed</em> by consumer ( FCRA ), ' yet they continue to be reported as collections. \n\nIn XX/XX/2025 ( please insert the exact date of your letter if you have it ), I <em>sent</em> a formal Debt Validation Request to LVNV Funding LLC regarding account # XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. - Account # XXXX ), which is associated with the LVNV accounts on my credit report."]},"sort":[12.341137,"14923262"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15766185","_score":11.9979105,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Draft Company Complained About : TransUnion LLC Issue Category : Incorrect information on your report Sub-Issue : Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation into an existing problem Complaint Narrative ( What Happened ) On XX/XX/XXXX, TransUnion suffered a major data breach affecting more than XXXX XXXX consumers, exposing names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and consumer records. My personal information was included in this breach, placing me at high risk of identity theft and fraud. \nAs a result, I am disputing the following inaccurate accounts and unauthorized hard inquiries on my TransUnion credit report : - XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX - This account is reporting inflated balances, false late payments after repossession, and inaccurate deficiency amounts. \nXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX - This account was charged off but is reporting postcharge-off collection activity in violation of Metro 2 and FCRA reporting standards. \nUnauthorized Hard Inquiries : - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX XXXX ( Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX ( Bank ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Finance XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX ( Finance ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX - XXXX  XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX, XXXX - XXXX Bank XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX  Card ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX  ( Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX  ( Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX I sent TransUnion a certified dispute letter demanding removal of these accounts and inquiries within 7 days due to the severity of the breach and the ongoing risk of harm. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ), TransUnion is required to reinvestigate and correct inaccurate information. Failure to act promptly will be considered willful noncompliance. \nDesired Resolution I am requesting that TransUnion : 1. Immediately delete XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX and XXXX  XXXX XXXX # XXXX from my credit report. \n2. Immediately remove all unauthorized hard inquiries listed above.\n\n3. Provide me with written confirmation of whether my personal data was included in the XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion data breach. \n4. Provide proof that any information they continue to report has been fully verified as accurate and authorized. \n\nTransUnion XX/XX/XXXX data breach","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-06T18:27:28.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"480XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15766185","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-06T18:20:19.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Draft Company Complained About : TransUnion LLC Issue Category : Incorrect information on your report Sub-Issue : Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation into an existing problem <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ( What Happened ) On XX/XX/XXXX, TransUnion suffered a <em>major</em> data breach affecting more than XXXX XXXX consumers, exposing names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and consumer records."]},"sort":[11.9979105,"15766185"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15475652","_score":11.096313,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT NARRATIVE : I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies- TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax - for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my credit dispute submitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nBACKGROUND : On XX/XX/year>, I sent notarized dispute letters via certified mail to all three credit bureaus disputing inaccurate accounts on my credit reports. I specifically demanded manual investigations by human beings and explicitly rejected the use of automated systems such as E-Oscar. I provided all required identification documents. \n\nREMARKABLE SUCCESS PROVES DISPUTES HAD MERIT : The credit bureaus ' own actions prove my disputes were valid : Credit scores improved dramatically from poor/fair to Good range ( XXXX Equifax, XXXX TransUnion/Experian ) XXXX account completely removed from Equifax XXXX hard inquiry removed from all three bureaus Account statuses upgraded from negative to \" Pays as Agreed '' This success demonstrates that my original disputes identified legitimate inaccuracies that required correction. \n\nFCRA VIOLATIONS BY EACH BUREAU : TRANSUNION VIOLATIONS : 1. INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Despite explicit rejection of automated systems, TransUnion clearly used E-Oscar or similar automated processing. Their investigation failed to address specific inaccuracies I identified.\n\n2. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXX XXXX  account ( {$2900.00} balance ) - Still reporting as closed despite dispute 3. SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE TransUnion successfully removed the XXXX inquiry but failed to investigate accounts with the same thoroughness, suggesting arbitrary decision-making rather than proper investigation. \n\nEXPERIAN VIOLATIONS : 1. INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Experian failed to conduct proper manual investigation despite explicit demands for human review. \n\n2. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX  XXXX XXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXX XXXX  account ( {$2900.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX Still reporting despite dispute 3. INCONSISTENT STANDARDS Experian successfully removed the XXXX inquiry but failed to apply the same investigation standards to disputed accounts. \n\nEQUIFAX VIOLATIONS : 1. SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Equifax demonstrates the most egregious violation through selective compliance : Successfully removed XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  account entirely Successfully removed XXXX hard inquiry Failed to remove XXXX  XXXX XXXX account despite using identical dispute language 2. INCONSISTENT INVESTIGATION STANDARDS Equifax 's own actions prove they can remove disputed accounts when they choose to investigate properly. Their failure to remove the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account while removing the XXXX account demonstrates arbitrary and inconsistent application of investigation standards. \n\n3. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting with \" dispute resolved by data furnisher '' comment, indicating they acknowledged the dispute but failed to investigate properly PATTERN OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS : Automated System Use Despite Explicit Rejection : All three bureaus appear to have used automated systems ( E-Oscar ) despite my explicit written rejection of such systems in my XX/XX/year> dispute letters. \n\nSelective Compliance Across All Bureaus : The pattern of removing some disputed items while retaining others suggests systematic use of automated decision-making rather than proper human investigation. \n\nFurnisher Responsibility Violations ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : The bureaus failed to properly investigate accounts with data furnishers, as evidenced by continued reporting of disputed information. \n\nSPECIFIC HARM : 1. Credit Score Impact : Despite dramatic improvements, remaining inaccurate accounts continue to negatively impact my credit scores 2. Inconsistent Reporting : Same accounts report differently across bureaus, creating confusion and potential credit denials 3. Violation of Consumer Rights : My explicit requests for manual investigation were ignored by all three bureaus 4. Time and Effort : I have spent significant time and resources attempting to correct these inaccuracies 5. Emotional Distress : The stress of dealing with systematic FCRA violations by all three major credit bureaus EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account still reporting on all three bureaus despite disputes XXXX XXXX  account still reporting on TransUnion and Experian Inconsistent reporting of same accounts across bureaus LEGAL CITATIONS : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) - Method of verification requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information URGENCY AND PUBLIC INTEREST : This complaint represents systematic FCRA violations by all three major credit reporting agencies that control the credit information of virtually all American consumers. The pattern of : 1. Automated system use despite explicit consumer rejection 2. Selective compliance based on arbitrary criteria 3. Inconsistent investigation standards across identical disputes ... suggests institutional non-compliance that affects millions of consumers and requires comprehensive federal regulatory intervention. \n\nThe fact that these bureaus can successfully remove disputed items when they choose to ( as evidenced by the XXXX and XXXX removals ) but selectively refuse to remove others demonstrates willful violations that warrant the strongest possible enforcement action. \n\nNote : This complaint demonstrates systematic FCRA violations by the entire credit reporting industry and may warrant referral to the Federal Trade Commission and Congressional oversight committees for comprehensive regulatory reform.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-23T20:50:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78229","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15475652","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-23T19:56:57.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against all three <em>major</em> credit reporting agencies- TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax - for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my credit <em>dispute</em> submitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nBACKGROUND : On XX/XX/year>, I <em>sent</em> notarized <em>dispute</em> letters via certified mail to all three credit bureaus <em>disputing</em> inaccurate accounts on my credit reports."]},"sort":[11.096313,"15475652"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15476304","_score":11.06448,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT NARRATIVE : I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies- TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax - for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my credit dispute submitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nBACKGROUND : On XX/XX/year>, I sent notarized dispute letters via certified mail to all three credit bureaus disputing inaccurate accounts on my credit reports. I specifically demanded manual investigations by human beings and explicitly rejected the use of automated systems such as E-Oscar. I provided all required identification documents. \n\nREMARKABLE SUCCESS PROVES DISPUTES HAD MERIT : The credit bureaus ' own actions prove my disputes were valid : Credit scores improved dramatically from poor/fair to Good range ( XXXX Equifax, XXXX TransUnion/Experian ) XXXX account completely removed from Equifax XXXX hard inquiry removed from all three bureaus Account statuses upgraded from negative to \" Pays as Agreed '' This success demonstrates that my original disputes identified legitimate inaccuracies that required correction. \n\nFCRA VIOLATIONS BY EACH BUREAU : TRANSUNION VIOLATIONS : 1. INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Despite explicit rejection of automated systems, TransUnion clearly used E-Oscar or similar automated processing. Their investigation failed to address specific inaccuracies I identified.\n\n2. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXX XXXX  account ( {$2900.00} balance ) - Still reporting as closed despite dispute 3. SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE TransUnion successfully removed the XXXX inquiry but failed to investigate accounts with the same thoroughness, suggesting arbitrary decision-making rather than proper investigation. \n\nEXPERIAN VIOLATIONS : 1. INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Experian failed to conduct proper manual investigation despite explicit demands for human review. \n\n2. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX  XXXX XXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXX XXXX  account ( {$2900.00} balance ) - Still reporting despite dispute XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX Still reporting despite dispute 3. INCONSISTENT STANDARDS Experian successfully removed the XXXX inquiry but failed to apply the same investigation standards to disputed accounts. \n\nEQUIFAX VIOLATIONS : 1. SELECTIVE COMPLIANCE ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ) Equifax demonstrates the most egregious violation through selective compliance : Successfully removed XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  account entirely Successfully removed XXXX hard inquiry Failed to remove XXXX  XXXX XXXX account despite using identical dispute language 2. INCONSISTENT INVESTIGATION STANDARDS Equifax 's own actions prove they can remove disputed accounts when they choose to investigate properly. Their failure to remove the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account while removing the XXXX account demonstrates arbitrary and inconsistent application of investigation standards. \n\n3. CONTINUED INACCURATE REPORTING ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account ( {$21000.00} balance ) - Still reporting with \" dispute resolved by data furnisher '' comment, indicating they acknowledged the dispute but failed to investigate properly PATTERN OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS : Automated System Use Despite Explicit Rejection : All three bureaus appear to have used automated systems ( E-Oscar ) despite my explicit written rejection of such systems in my XX/XX/year> dispute letters. \n\nSelective Compliance Across All Bureaus : The pattern of removing some disputed items while retaining others suggests systematic use of automated decision-making rather than proper human investigation. \n\nFurnisher Responsibility Violations ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : The bureaus failed to properly investigate accounts with data furnishers, as evidenced by continued reporting of disputed information. \n\nSPECIFIC HARM : 1. Credit Score Impact : Despite dramatic improvements, remaining inaccurate accounts continue to negatively impact my credit scores 2. Inconsistent Reporting : Same accounts report differently across bureaus, creating confusion and potential credit denials 3. Violation of Consumer Rights : My explicit requests for manual investigation were ignored by all three bureaus 4. Time and Effort : I have spent significant time and resources attempting to correct these inaccuracies 5. Emotional Distress : The stress of dealing with systematic FCRA violations by all three major credit bureaus EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account still reporting on all three bureaus despite disputes XXXX XXXX  account still reporting on TransUnion and Experian Inconsistent reporting of same accounts across bureaus LEGAL CITATIONS : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Procedure in case of disputed accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) - Method of verification requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information URGENCY AND PUBLIC INTEREST : This complaint represents systematic FCRA violations by all three major credit reporting agencies that control the credit information of virtually all American consumers. The pattern of : 1. Automated system use despite explicit consumer rejection 2. Selective compliance based on arbitrary criteria 3. Inconsistent investigation standards across identical disputes ... suggests institutional non-compliance that affects millions of consumers and requires comprehensive federal regulatory intervention. \n\nThe fact that these bureaus can successfully remove disputed items when they choose to ( as evidenced by the XXXX and XXXX removals ) but selectively refuse to remove others demonstrates willful violations that warrant the strongest possible enforcement action. \n\nNote : This complaint demonstrates systematic FCRA violations by the entire credit reporting industry and may warrant referral to the Federal Trade Commission and Congressional oversight committees for comprehensive regulatory reform.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-23T20:50:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78229","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15476304","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-23T20:49:45.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against all three <em>major</em> credit reporting agencies- TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax - for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my credit <em>dispute</em> submitted on XX/XX/year>. \n\nBACKGROUND : On XX/XX/year>, I <em>sent</em> notarized <em>dispute</em> letters via certified mail to all three credit bureaus <em>disputing</em> inaccurate accounts on my credit reports."]},"sort":[11.06448,"15476304"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16538764","_score":9.7280445,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'Security Credit Services, LLC Complaint Narrative\\n\\nConsumer: XXXX XXXX XXXXCompany: Security Credit Services, LLC\\nProduct: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports\\nIssue: Inaccurate or unverifiable account reporting / Failure to validate debt\\nFiling DateXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXReference: Former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account Ending XXXX1. Background and Context\\n\\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sold my credit account ending in XXXX  to Security Credit Services, LLC (Security), as confirmed by XXXX written sale letter dated XXXX XXXX XXXX  (attached as Exhibit A).\\n\\nImmediately following this sale, Security began furnishing the same account to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as an active collection account with a reported balance of XXXX. No validation of debt was ever mailed or provided to me, as required under FDCPA 809(b). I became aware of Securitys reporting only by reviewing my credit files  not through any legally required debt validation notice.\\n\\nDuring this same period, XXXX  continued to report the same account as a charge-off, producing dual and conflicting reporting of a single obligation. This created inaccurate, duplicate derogatory data and significant financial harm through elevated interest rates and credit denials.\\n\\n2. Prior Resolution by the XXXX XXXX XXXX\\n\\nIn response to my formal consumer disputes filed in XXXX, all three major credit reporting agencies (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX completed investigations and deleted the Security Credit Services tradeline by XXXX XXXX XXXX concluding that the information furnished by Security was unverifiable.\\n(AttacheXXXX XXXX Before and After reports confirming deletion  Exhibits D & E.)\\n\\nThis deletion constitutes an official finding that the data was not verifiable and bars its reinsertion without full certification of accuracy under FCRA 611(a)(5)(B).\\n\\n3. Ongoing Non-Compliance by Security Credit Services\\n\\nDespite this deletion, Security has never produced any validation of ownership, assignment, or accounting for the alleged debt. On XXXX XXXX XXXX  I sent Security a certified Debt Validation Request under FDCPA 809(b) (Exhibit B), received and signed for by an authorized agent XXXX XXXX. on XXXX XXXX XXXX  (Exhibit C).\\n\\nTo date, Security has not provided any of the required documentation or acknowledgment. This constitutes a continued violation of FDCPA 809(b) and FCRA 623(a)(1)(A).\\n\\nI subsequently issued a Final Notice  Illegal Reporting and Permanent Reinsertion Prohibition on XXXX XXXX XXXX mailed Certified XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  (Exhibit H), restating that the account remains deleted and unvalidated, and warning against any reinsertion or reassignment.\\n\\n4. Legal Summary of Violations\\n\\nSecurity Credit Services has violated multiple consumer protection statutes:\\n\\nFDCPA 809(b)  Failure to provide validation after written request and continuing to maintain records implying collection activity.\\n\\nFCRA 623(a)(1)(A)  Furnishing information known or reasonably believed to be inaccurate after deletion.\\n\\nFCRA 611(a)(5)(B)  Reinsertions prohibited without certification of accuracy (this deletion was confirmed XXXX XXXX XXXX\\nFCRA 607(b)  Failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy.\\n\\n5. Closure of Potential Defenses\\n\\nTo avoid ambiguity or future misuse, the following points clarify that no legitimate defense remains available to Security:\\n\\nNo initial validation notice was ever sent. Therefore, the FDCPA 30-day window never began. Security remains in a permanent validation hold under 809(b).\\n\\nDeletion does not cure past violations. The act of reporting unverifiable data prior to deletion remains actionable under 616-617 of the FCRA.\\n\\nGood-faith reliance on XXXX  is not a defense. Once Security received my written dispute (XXXX XXXX XXXX, it assumed an independent duty to verify before reporting or retaining the debt.\\n\\nInternal recordkeeping does not exempt FDCPA obligations. Any continued storage or transmission of unverifiable data violates 807(8) (false representation of credit information).\\n\\nResale or reassignment is prohibited. Pursuant to 611(a)(5)(B), any attempt to re-report or transfer this account constitutes a new federal violation and will be treated as willful non-compliance.\\n\\nThis complaint is directly related to my pending CFPB Case XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and is part of the same transaction chain; please cross-reference both matters for enforcement and damages analysis.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-13T21:50:58.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78233","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16538764","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Security Credit Services, LLC","date_received":"2025-10-13T21:35:45.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["b'Security Credit Services, LLC <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em>\\n\\nConsumer: XXXX XXXX XXXXCompany: Security Credit Services, LLC\\nProduct: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports\\nIssue: Inaccurate or unverifiable account reporting / Failure to validate debt\\nFiling DateXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXReference: Former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account Ending XXXX1."]},"sort":[9.7280445,"16538764"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17620831","_score":9.644622,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX SSN : * -- XXXX Current Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WV XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Equifax for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX and Equifax Information Services LLC for reporting multiple inaccurate, incomplete, conflicting, and unverifiable items on my Equifax credit report, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe disputed account appears as : * XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending in XXXX Auto Loan Status : Charge-Off This information was obtained from my Equifax report dated XX/XX/XXXX, Confirmation # XXXX. \n\nSpecific FCRA Violations 1. Violation of FCRA 607 ( b ) : Failure to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy Several fields contain clear, indisputable inaccuracies : The charge-off amount ( {$15000.00} ) exceeds the reported high credit ( {$15000.00} ) a mathematical impossibility. \n\nNarrative codes state the high credit equals the original charge-off amount, but the values differ.\n\nDates of delinquency, charge-off, and last payment contradict each other.\n\nThese inaccuracies demonstrate a failure to maintain accurate reporting as required.\n\n2. Violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) : Furnishing Information Known or Should Be Known to Be Inaccurate Bridgecrest continues to furnish : Contradictory dates Impossible financial figures Repeated monthly balances with no updates for over 24 months This constitutes furnishing information that is not accurate or reliable.\n\n3. Violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) : Misreporting / Re-Aging the Date of First Delinquency XXXX reports : Date of First Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX Date Major Delinquency First Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Last Payment : XX/XX/XXXX These inconsistencies suggest improper re-aging to illegally extend the reporting period. \nRe-aging is explicitly prohibited by FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\n4. Violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) : Reporting Incomplete or Unverifiable Information The account contains : Blank scheduled payment amounts No updated payment activity Repeated identical balances for two years Conflicting charge-off data Unverifiable information must be deleted.\n\n5. Violation of FCRA 605 ( a ) : Reporting Outdated or Improperly Dated Negative Information Re-aging artificially extends how long negative information remains on my credit report, violating the 7-year limit for delinquency-based reporting.\n\nRequested Action Under FCRA 602A, 607 ( b ), 611 ( a ), 623 ( a ), and 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), I respectfully request : Immediate deletion of the entire XXXX XXXX XXXX account from my Equifax credit file, because : The account contains multiple factual inaccuracies. \n\nThe data conflicts internally and is unverifiable. \n\nThe delinquency has been improperly re-aged. \n\nThe report violates federal obligations for accurate, complete, and fair reporting. \n\nI request the CFPB investigate these violations and ensure the consumer reporting agencies and furnisher comply with federal law. \n\nAttachments XXXXomplete Equifax credit report ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Highlighted Bridgecrest entry showing inaccurate fields. \n\nI have repeatedly sent disputes and they come back as verified, showing that Equifax has not performed due diligence and confirmed the actual misrepresentations in my report, leading to inaccurate reporting to continue despite those disputes. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention. I request written confirmation once corrective actions have been taken. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-01T17:16:25.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"258XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17620831","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-01T16:46:31.000Z","state":"WV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have repeatedly <em>sent</em> <em>disputes</em> and they come back as verified, showing that Equifax has not performed due diligence and confirmed the actual misrepresentations in my report, leading to inaccurate reporting to continue despite those <em>disputes</em>. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention. I request written confirmation once corrective actions have been taken. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[9.644622,"17620831"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15741265","_score":8.565581,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) following their complete failure to properly investigate my notarized dispute letters dated XX/XX/XXXX. Despite receiving proper legal notice over XXXX  days ago, these agencies have either completely failed to respond or provided inadequate investigations that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I. BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted properly notarized dispute letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple closed accounts on my credit reports. These disputes were sent via certified mail with proper legal notice and explicit rejection of automated verification systems. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX ( over XXXX  days later ), the credit reporting agencies have demonstrated systematic violations of federal law through their responses or lack thereof. \n\nXXXX. SYSTEMATIC FCRA VIOLATIONS BY AGENCY A. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC - COMPLETE NON-COMPLIANCE Violation Type : Total failure to respond to consumer dispute Disputed Accounts ( All Still Reporting ) : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Complete failure to conduct any investigation within 30-day period 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : Failure to provide written results of investigation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Willful disregard for accuracy requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 : Failure to conduct reasonable investigation Evidence of Willful Violations : Received properly notarized dispute letter on XX/XX/XXXX Over XXXX  days have passed with XXXX response Six separate accounts disputed with complete non-compliance Pattern of regulatory violations given Equifax 's history of data breaches B. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC. - COMPLETE NON-COMPLIANCE Violation Type : Total failure to respond to consumer dispute Disputed Accounts ( All Still Reporting ) : XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$61.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX  XXXX - Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$74.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$55.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Complete failure to conduct any investigation within 30-day period 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : Failure to provide written results of investigation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Willful disregard for accuracy requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 : Failure to conduct reasonable investigation Evidence of Willful Violations : Received properly notarized dispute letter on XX/XX/XXXX Over XXXX  days have passed with XXXX response XXXX separate accounts disputed with complete non-compliance C. TRANSUNION LLC - INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION Violation Type : Partial compliance with continued violations Account Status : Removed : XXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX proving disputes had merit ) Still Violating : XXXX XXXX account continues reporting with inaccurate information Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Inadequate investigation of XXXX XXXX account 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) : Failure to provide verification method documentation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Continued reporting of inaccurate payment history ratings Automated System Violation : Use of prohibited automated systems despite explicit rejection Evidence of Violations : XXXX XXXX account still reporting inaccurate payment history ratings No documentation provided showing verification method Explicit rejection of automated systems ( E-Oscar ) ignored III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Investigation Requirements : All three agencies have violated the mandatory 30-day investigation requirement, with Equifax and Experian showing complete non-compliance.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Results Notification : Equifax and Experian have completely failed to provide any written results of investigation as required by federal law.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) - Verification Method Disclosure : TransUnion has failed to provide documentation of their verification method for the disputed COMENITY BANK/AVENUE account.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Accuracy Requirements : All three agencies continue to report disputed information without proper verification, violating accuracy standards.\n\nB. Willful Noncompliance Standard Under Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 ( 2007 ), willful noncompliance includes reckless disregard for FCRA requirements. The complete non-response by Equifax and Experian, and inadequate investigation by TransUnion, constitute willful violations warranting statutory damages. \n\nIV. EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS A. Proper Legal Notice All dispute letters were properly notarized on XX/XX/XXXX Sent via certified mail to official dispute addresses Explicit rejection of automated verification systems included Over 60 days have passed since receipt B. Pattern of Non-Compliance Equifax : Complete failure to respond to six disputed accounts Experian : Complete failure to respond to four disputed accounts TransUnion : Partial compliance proving disputes had merit, but continued violations XXXX Evidence of Merit TransUnion 's removal of the XXXX account proves that my disputes had legitimate basis, making the complete non-response by Equifax and Experian even more egregious.\n\nV. HARM TO CONSUMER A. Credit Score Impact The continued reporting of inaccurate information negatively impacts my credit scores and creditworthiness.\n\nB. Access to Credit Inaccurate reporting affects my ability to obtain credit on favorable terms.\n\nC. Constitutional Violations Fifth Amendment Due Process : Denial of fair procedures for dispute resolution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection : Discriminatory application of investigation standards","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-05T18:56:09.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48092","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15741265","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-05T18:55:43.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against all three <em>major</em> credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) following their complete failure to properly investigate my notarized <em>dispute</em> letters dated XX/XX/XXXX. Despite receiving proper legal notice over XXXX  days ago, these agencies have either completely failed to respond or provided inadequate investigations that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> I."]},"sort":[8.565581,"15741265"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15741264","_score":8.536148,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) following their complete failure to properly investigate my notarized dispute letters dated XX/XX/XXXX. Despite receiving proper legal notice over XXXX  days ago, these agencies have either completely failed to respond or provided inadequate investigations that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I. BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted properly notarized dispute letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple closed accounts on my credit reports. These disputes were sent via certified mail with proper legal notice and explicit rejection of automated verification systems. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX ( over XXXX  days later ), the credit reporting agencies have demonstrated systematic violations of federal law through their responses or lack thereof. \n\nXXXX. SYSTEMATIC FCRA VIOLATIONS BY AGENCY A. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC - COMPLETE NON-COMPLIANCE Violation Type : Total failure to respond to consumer dispute Disputed Accounts ( All Still Reporting ) : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Complete failure to conduct any investigation within 30-day period 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : Failure to provide written results of investigation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Willful disregard for accuracy requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 : Failure to conduct reasonable investigation Evidence of Willful Violations : Received properly notarized dispute letter on XX/XX/XXXX Over XXXX  days have passed with XXXX response Six separate accounts disputed with complete non-compliance Pattern of regulatory violations given Equifax 's history of data breaches B. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC. - COMPLETE NON-COMPLIANCE Violation Type : Total failure to respond to consumer dispute Disputed Accounts ( All Still Reporting ) : XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$61.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX  XXXX - Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$74.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$55.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Complete failure to conduct any investigation within 30-day period 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : Failure to provide written results of investigation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Willful disregard for accuracy requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 : Failure to conduct reasonable investigation Evidence of Willful Violations : Received properly notarized dispute letter on XX/XX/XXXX Over XXXX  days have passed with XXXX response XXXX separate accounts disputed with complete non-compliance C. TRANSUNION LLC - INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION Violation Type : Partial compliance with continued violations Account Status : Removed : XXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX proving disputes had merit ) Still Violating : XXXX XXXX account continues reporting with inaccurate information Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Inadequate investigation of XXXX XXXX account 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) : Failure to provide verification method documentation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Continued reporting of inaccurate payment history ratings Automated System Violation : Use of prohibited automated systems despite explicit rejection Evidence of Violations : XXXX XXXX account still reporting inaccurate payment history ratings No documentation provided showing verification method Explicit rejection of automated systems ( E-Oscar ) ignored III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Investigation Requirements : All three agencies have violated the mandatory 30-day investigation requirement, with Equifax and Experian showing complete non-compliance.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Results Notification : Equifax and Experian have completely failed to provide any written results of investigation as required by federal law.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) - Verification Method Disclosure : TransUnion has failed to provide documentation of their verification method for the disputed COMENITY BANK/AVENUE account.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Accuracy Requirements : All three agencies continue to report disputed information without proper verification, violating accuracy standards.\n\nB. Willful Noncompliance Standard Under Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 ( 2007 ), willful noncompliance includes reckless disregard for FCRA requirements. The complete non-response by Equifax and Experian, and inadequate investigation by TransUnion, constitute willful violations warranting statutory damages. \n\nIV. EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS A. Proper Legal Notice All dispute letters were properly notarized on XX/XX/XXXX Sent via certified mail to official dispute addresses Explicit rejection of automated verification systems included Over 60 days have passed since receipt B. Pattern of Non-Compliance Equifax : Complete failure to respond to six disputed accounts Experian : Complete failure to respond to four disputed accounts TransUnion : Partial compliance proving disputes had merit, but continued violations XXXX Evidence of Merit TransUnion 's removal of the XXXX account proves that my disputes had legitimate basis, making the complete non-response by Equifax and Experian even more egregious.\n\nV. HARM TO CONSUMER A. Credit Score Impact The continued reporting of inaccurate information negatively impacts my credit scores and creditworthiness.\n\nB. Access to Credit Inaccurate reporting affects my ability to obtain credit on favorable terms.\n\nC. Constitutional Violations Fifth Amendment Due Process : Denial of fair procedures for dispute resolution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection : Discriminatory application of investigation standards","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-05T18:56:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48092","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15741264","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-05T18:55:43.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against all three <em>major</em> credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) following their complete failure to properly investigate my notarized <em>dispute</em> letters dated XX/XX/XXXX. Despite receiving proper legal notice over XXXX  days ago, these agencies have either completely failed to respond or provided inadequate investigations that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> I."]},"sort":[8.536148,"15741264"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15741092","_score":8.530715,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) following their complete failure to properly investigate my notarized dispute letters dated XX/XX/XXXX. Despite receiving proper legal notice over XXXX  days ago, these agencies have either completely failed to respond or provided inadequate investigations that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I. BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted properly notarized dispute letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple closed accounts on my credit reports. These disputes were sent via certified mail with proper legal notice and explicit rejection of automated verification systems. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX ( over XXXX  days later ), the credit reporting agencies have demonstrated systematic violations of federal law through their responses or lack thereof. \n\nXXXX. SYSTEMATIC FCRA VIOLATIONS BY AGENCY A. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC - COMPLETE NON-COMPLIANCE Violation Type : Total failure to respond to consumer dispute Disputed Accounts ( All Still Reporting ) : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Complete failure to conduct any investigation within 30-day period 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : Failure to provide written results of investigation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Willful disregard for accuracy requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 : Failure to conduct reasonable investigation Evidence of Willful Violations : Received properly notarized dispute letter on XX/XX/XXXX Over XXXX  days have passed with XXXX response Six separate accounts disputed with complete non-compliance Pattern of regulatory violations given Equifax 's history of data breaches B. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC. - COMPLETE NON-COMPLIANCE Violation Type : Total failure to respond to consumer dispute Disputed Accounts ( All Still Reporting ) : XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$61.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX  XXXX - Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$74.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX - High Balance : {$55.00}, Closed XX/XX/XXXX Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Complete failure to conduct any investigation within 30-day period 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) : Failure to provide written results of investigation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Willful disregard for accuracy requirements 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 : Failure to conduct reasonable investigation Evidence of Willful Violations : Received properly notarized dispute letter on XX/XX/XXXX Over XXXX  days have passed with XXXX response XXXX separate accounts disputed with complete non-compliance C. TRANSUNION LLC - INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION Violation Type : Partial compliance with continued violations Account Status : Removed : XXXX XXXX XXXX account XXXX proving disputes had merit ) Still Violating : XXXX XXXX account continues reporting with inaccurate information Federal Law Violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) : Inadequate investigation of XXXX XXXX account 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) : Failure to provide verification method documentation 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Continued reporting of inaccurate payment history ratings Automated System Violation : Use of prohibited automated systems despite explicit rejection Evidence of Violations : XXXX XXXX account still reporting inaccurate payment history ratings No documentation provided showing verification method Explicit rejection of automated systems ( E-Oscar ) ignored III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Investigation Requirements : All three agencies have violated the mandatory 30-day investigation requirement, with Equifax and Experian showing complete non-compliance.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Results Notification : Equifax and Experian have completely failed to provide any written results of investigation as required by federal law.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ) - Verification Method Disclosure : TransUnion has failed to provide documentation of their verification method for the disputed COMENITY BANK/AVENUE account.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Accuracy Requirements : All three agencies continue to report disputed information without proper verification, violating accuracy standards.\n\nB. Willful Noncompliance Standard Under Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 ( 2007 ), willful noncompliance includes reckless disregard for FCRA requirements. The complete non-response by Equifax and Experian, and inadequate investigation by TransUnion, constitute willful violations warranting statutory damages. \n\nIV. EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS A. Proper Legal Notice All dispute letters were properly notarized on XX/XX/XXXX Sent via certified mail to official dispute addresses Explicit rejection of automated verification systems included Over 60 days have passed since receipt B. Pattern of Non-Compliance Equifax : Complete failure to respond to six disputed accounts Experian : Complete failure to respond to four disputed accounts TransUnion : Partial compliance proving disputes had merit, but continued violations XXXX Evidence of Merit TransUnion 's removal of the XXXX account proves that my disputes had legitimate basis, making the complete non-response by Equifax and Experian even more egregious.\n\nV. HARM TO CONSUMER A. Credit Score Impact The continued reporting of inaccurate information negatively impacts my credit scores and creditworthiness.\n\nB. Access to Credit Inaccurate reporting affects my ability to obtain credit on favorable terms.\n\nC. Constitutional Violations Fifth Amendment Due Process : Denial of fair procedures for dispute resolution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection : Discriminatory application of investigation standards","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-05T18:56:09.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48092","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15741092","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-05T18:33:40.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am filing this <em>complaint</em> against all three <em>major</em> credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) following their complete failure to properly investigate my notarized <em>dispute</em> letters dated XX/XX/XXXX. Despite receiving proper legal notice over XXXX  days ago, these agencies have either completely failed to respond or provided inadequate investigations that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> I."]},"sort":[8.530715,"15741092"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18391841","_score":8.226743,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"FORMAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT Improper Debt Collection Practices, Failure to Provide Required Notice, Denial of Account Access, and Unfair/Inaccurate Credit Reporting My legal name has changed. My current legal name is : XXXX XXXX. \nMy prior name ( which may appear on the collection account ) is : XXXX XXXX. \n\nI am submitting this formal complaint regarding improper debt collection practices by Credit Collection Services ( including as shown on my credit reports as XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), related to an alleged debt originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amount of approximately {$350.00}. \n\nAssignment / Transfer of the Debt ( from XXXX XXXX ) This alleged debt was originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX and was then transferred/placed/assigned by XXXX XXXX Group to Credit Collection Services for XXXX XXXX Based on my credit reporting, the account reflects a Date Assigned of XX/XX/year> ( Equifax ). XXXX activity began no later than XX/XX/year>. \n\nLack of Proper Notice After the debt was transferred/placed with the collection agency, I did not receive a single written notice by XXXX mail XXXX email at my current address from the collection agency. I received only automated text messages. \nI began receiving SMS messages from Credit Collection Services on XX/XX/year> and afterward ( XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year> ). The messages directed me to www.ccspayment.com and referenced Reference File XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX message also directed me to XXXX XXXX XXXX  included California License Number : XXXX and phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX ( and in at least one message, ( XXXX ) XXXX ). \n\nThese text messages resembled suspicious or potentially fraudulent communications and did not reasonably appear to be legitimate debt collection notices. No validation letter ( initial notice ), no email, and no mailed correspondence were ever sent to my current address. \n\nDenial of Account XXXX The text messages directed me to an online portal. To access the account, I was required to : XXXX. Enter a reference number XXXX. Enter the ZIP code associated with my address After entering the reference number and then my current ZIP code ( XXXX ), the system repeatedly returned an authentication failed error, as shown in the attached screenshots. \n\nBecause of this error : I could not access the account I could not view or verify the debt I could not make a payment I could not dispute the debt Attempts to Contact the Agency I attempted to contact Credit Collection Services multiple times by phone. For a significant period, their phone line was never answered, despite repeated calls. \n\nBecause the text messages appeared suspicious and I was unable to access the account, I reasonably believed the messages might be fraudulent. \n\nOnly after a collection record appeared on my credit reports did it become clear that this was a legitimate collection agency. At that point, I spent several consecutive hours ( approximately XXXX hours ) attempting to reach a live representative. \n\nOn XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX, I placed a call to ( XXXX ) XXXX that lasted XXXX minutes and XXXX seconds ( call log screenshot attached ). \n\nAdmission of Incorrect Address and ZIP Code When I finally reached an agent, I explained that : I had received no letters or emails I had received only text messages I was unable to access the account online due to authentication failed The agent asked for my name and asked which ZIP code I was entering. The agent then told me which ZIP code their system required for authentication ( it was - XXXX ). I informed the agent that I have not lived at the address associated with that ZIP code for at least XXXX years and that my credit reports have reflected my current address for a long time. I explained that the XXXX outdated address/ZIP code records were the reason I could not authenticate or access the account. The agent then requested my current address and updated it in their system only at that time, after the collection had already been reported. \n\nRefusal to Correct the Error I requested that the collection entry be removed/corrected because : All notices were sent to an incorrect address I received no proper written notice I was denied access due to the agencys internal record/system error I was prevented from paying or disputing the debt The agent stated that they do not care that the address was incorrect and claimed that sending notices to an outdated address still constituted notice. I was told that this was my problem, and the call was terminated by the agency. \n\nLegal Impact As a direct result of the collection agencys actions : I was not properly notified of the debt I was denied access to my account I was prevented from exercising my right to dispute the debt or obtain validation within the required time period A negative collection account was reported to major credit bureaus without a fair opportunity to resolve the matter The collection agencys conduct effectively blocked my ability to timely address the matter, while simultaneously damaging my credit. \n\nViolations This conduct appears to violate federal and California XXXX, including but not limited to : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( required written validation notice ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f ( deceptive and unfair collection practices ) Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( duties of furnishers regarding accuracy and investigation after dispute ) California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et seq. ( including 1788.17 ) California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA ), Cal. Civ. Code 1785.25 ( a ) ( accuracy in credit reporting ) California Debt Collection Licensing Act, Cal. Fin. Code 100000 et seq. ( licensed debt collector conduct standards ) Supporting Documentation Attached are all supporting materials, including but not limited to : Complaint Narrative ( CFPB ) - Credit Collection Services Screenshots/PDF showing authentication failed during portal access ; Records/screenshots of text messages and reference file information ; Credit report entries ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX showing the XXXX tradeline, dates, and balance ; Call log evidence ( XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to ( XXXX ) XXXX ) Thank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-31T10:36:11.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"92618","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18391841","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-31T09:30:49.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 100000 et seq. ( licensed debt collector conduct standards ) Supporting Documentation Attached are all supporting materials, including but not limited to : <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ( CFPB ) - Credit Collection Services Screenshots/PDF showing authentication failed during portal access ; Records/screenshots of text messages and reference file information ; Credit report entries ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX showing the XXXX tradeline, dates, and balance ; Call log evidence ( XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX"],"sub_issue":["Didn't receive notice of right to <em>dispute</em>"]},"sort":[8.226743,"18391841"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18207873","_score":8.146803,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint involves both Chime and XXXX, one or both of which committed a banking error as part of a botched dispute process that resulted in the literal disappearance of {$200.00} from my accounts.\n\nI have attempted to resolve the issue multiple times over the past 4 months with both XXXX and Chime, to include a 3-way call between XXXX and Chime representatives, but have yet to reach a solution. Both parties have acknowledged the existence and complexity of this discrepancy, however neither have taken any actual action to resolve the error. Chime has been largely unwilling to pursue the matter, or even provide documentation, while XXXXXXXX XXXX  process has been limited in its helpfulness. \n\nFor a background on this issue, it began with a fund transfer of {$200.00} from my XXXX checking account into my Chime account via XXXX XXXX  for my XXXX XXXX XXXX. The funds were transferred to pay a private merchant for a product advertised on XXXX XXXX, which unfortunately turned out to be a scam. Attempts were made to dispute the payment directly with Chime, however because the type of payment was akin to a cash transfer, a dispute was not possible. When filing a police report with the XXXX XXXX Police Department, the police recommended also initiating a dispute through XXXX. \n\nThe outstanding problems began as a part of this XXXX dispute process with Chime. The dispute was found not in my favor, which was the expected outcome, and I am NOT concerned with the original decision of the dispute. I know that original {$200.00} is gone for good. However, Chime inexplicably charged my own account a \" Debit Card Chargeback '' of {$200.00}, allegedly back to XXXX, which did not make it back into my XXXX account, and now neither bank can account for the funds. The first problem is that the dispute was never about my own transfer from XXXX to Chime, but the payment made to the merchant. Chime had sent XXXX documentation that the payment in question was unrecoverable. The second glaring problem is that Chime is claiming they executed a Debit Card Chargeback even though they had denied the dispute claim. Ultimately, between two financial institutions, they managed to make {$200.00} vanish into thin air. My Chime account is now at a - {$200.00} balance, with a total loss to me of {$400.00} to include the originally disputed payment to the scam merchant.\n\nPlease see below for a detailed timeline and narrative of events : XXXX XX/XX/year> {$200.00} transfer from XXXX to Chime, which was then used to pay for merchandise advertised on XXXX XXXX ( scam merchant ) XX/XX/year> Dispute filed with XXXX per XXXX Police Department recommendation when filing a police report - Temporary {$200.00} credit issued by XXXX pending outcome of dispute XXXX XX/XX/year> Received correspondence from XXXX that a dispute has been submitted to Chime XXXX XX/XX/year> My own Chime account shows a Debit Card Chargeback for {$200.00}, resulting in a - {$200.00} balance on my Chime account, however XXXX accounts did not reflect a credit or refund for {$200.00}. \n- Reached out to Chime customer service many times, who informed me that they approved and executed a chargeback to XXXX and that the charge can not be disputed - Payment to scam merchant still can not be recovered, so this chargeback to XXXX was essentially against myself XXXX XX/XX/year> Received correspondence from XXXX that the dispute did not result in my favor, and that the provisional credit will be reversed on XXXX XXXX. Note the 7 day discrepancies between the Chargeback date and the dispute decision date. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> Temporary credit reversed, and no credits from Chime back into my account exists - Net loss for me at this point is {$400.00}, {$200.00} of which is from this dispute gone wrong and vanished into thin air XXXX XX/XX/year> Contacted both XXXX and Chime several times to explain the error, resulting in inaction each time with neither party taking responsibility for the error. Chime essentially refused to speak to me about a way forward to resolve the charge in question as it involved another bank. Chime customer service would put me through endless transfers between departments and representatives, each time resulting in the agent allegedly exhausting options to help me further. One Chime agent actually told me this case is too complex and that they do not have a department capable of handling the issue. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> Initiated a 3-way call between XXXX, Chime, and myself to attempt to resolve the issue. During the call, the XXXX agent discovered several discrepancies, which should be detailed in the case notes, to include Chimes chargeback date pre-dating the denied dispute decision, and a general unwillingness by Chime to disclose information. \n- XXXX Agent re-opened the case and escalated for review. She also included a request for documentation. \n- XXXX Agent theorized that the money may be stuck somewhere in limbo in a XXXX account, and that the issue may be resolved with a transaction ID number, which Chime refused to provide at the time - XXXX Agent assured me that the case will be reviewed and that action/correspondence will occur between XXXX and Chime to resolve the banking error. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> Correspondence received for Request for Documentation, and case was closed without any action or remarks about the core issue. Correspondence consisted of transaction and supporting documentation used for the original decision, to include Chime 's response to the dispute along with their policies on the money transfer function. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> I called XXXX back for a status of the review and was informed that the case was closed. I re-explained the issue, and the agent re-opened the case. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> I once again received correspondence for Request for Documentation, the same exact ones sent earlier, once again without action or remarks for the outstanding banking error issue. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> I called Chime to inquire about a transaction ID number for the XXXX XX/XX/year> chargeback, which the agent did provide this time but only verbally ( denied request to send written documentation ). The agent was difficult to understand due to his language barrier, but the Transaction ID, transcribed to the best of my ability, is : XXXX. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/year> I called XXXX resolutions team to once again re-explain the issue, leading us to this point with the case re-opened for review. XXXX recommended that I submit this document to detail this complex issue. \n\nTo summarize, as part of this flawed dispute process, Chime alleges that they executed a {$200.00} Debit Card chargeback to XXXX, which was not received on my end in XXXX, meanwhile XXXX made a decision against my favor for the dispute, resulting in {$200.00} vanishing between two major financial institutions. I am not arguing the outcome of the original dispute decision, I know that original {$200.00} is gone to the scammer for good. The glaring issue now is how two banks made an additional {$200.00} disappear, with one side claiming that they approved a chargeback, and the other stating the dispute was unsuccessful and did not receive any amount returned by Chime. The net loss to me now is {$400.00} and many hours dealing with this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-21T20:40:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77459","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18207873","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-12-21T19:15:04.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To summarize, as part of this flawed <em>dispute</em> process, Chime alleges that they executed a {$200.00} Debit Card chargeback to XXXX, which was not received on my end in XXXX, meanwhile XXXX made a decision against my favor for the <em>dispute</em>, resulting in {$200.00} vanishing between two <em>major</em> financial institutions. I am not arguing the outcome of the original <em>dispute</em> decision, I know that original {$200.00} is gone to the scammer for good."]},"sort":[8.146803,"18207873"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18207939","_score":8.142252,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint involves both XXXX and USAA, one or both of which committed a banking error as part of a botched dispute process that resulted in the literal disappearance of {$200.00} from my accounts.\n\nI have attempted to resolve the issue multiple times over the past 4 months with both USAA and XXXX to include a 3-way call between USAA and XXXX representatives, but have yet to reach a solution. Both parties have acknowledged the existence and complexity of this discrepancy, however neither have taken any actual action to resolve the error. XXXX has been largely unwilling to pursue the matter, or even provide documentation, while USAA 's process has been limited in its helpfulness. \n\nFor a background on this issue, it began with a fund transfer of {$200.00} from my USAA checking account into my XXXX  account via XXXXXXXX XXXX for my USAA Debit Card. The funds were transferred to pay a private merchant for a product advertised on XXXX XXXX, which unfortunately turned out to be a scam. Attempts were made to dispute the payment directly with XXXX, however because the type of payment was akin to a cash transfer, a dispute was not possible. When filing a police report with the XXXX, CA Police Department, the police recommended also initiating a dispute through USAA. \n\nThe outstanding problems began as a part of this USAA dispute process with XXXX. The dispute was found not in my favor, which was the expected outcome, and I am NOT concerned with the original decision of the dispute. I know that original {$200.00} is gone for good. However, XXXX inexplicably charged my own account a \" Debit Card Chargeback '' of {$200.00}, allegedly back to USAA, which did not make it back into my USAA account, and now neither bank can account for the funds. The first problem is that the dispute was never about my own transfer from USAA to XXXX, but the payment made to the merchant. XXXX had sent USAA documentation that the payment in question was unrecoverable. The second glaring problem is that XXXX is claiming they executed a Debit Card Chargeback even though they had denied the dispute claim. Ultimately, between two financial institutions, they managed to make {$200.00} vanish into thin air. My XXXX  account is now at a - {$200.00} balance, with a total loss to me of {$400.00} to include the originally disputed payment to the scam merchant. \n\nPlease see below for a detailed timeline and narrative of events : * XXXX XX/XX/year> {$200.00} transfer from USAA to XXXX which was then used to pay for merchandise advertised on XXXX XXXX ( scam merchant ) * XX/XX/year> Dispute filed with USAA per XXXX Police Department recommendation when filing a police report. \n- Temporary {$200.00} credit issued by USAA pending outcome of dispute * XXXX XX/XX/year> Received correspondence from USAA that a dispute has been submitted to XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX/XX/year> My own XXXX account shows a Debit Card Chargeback for {$200.00}, resulting in a - {$200.00} balance on my XXXX account, however USAA accounts did not reflect a credit or refund for {$200.00}. \n- Reached out to XXXX  customer service many times, who informed me that they approved and executed a chargeback to USAA and that the charge can not be disputed. \n- Payment to scam merchant still can not be recovered, so this chargeback to USAA was essentially against myself. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> Received correspondence from USAA that the dispute did not result in my favor, and that the provisional credit will be reversed on XXXX XXXX. Note the 7 day discrepancies between the XXXX date and the dispute decision date. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> Temporary credit reversed, and no credits from XXXX back into my account exists - Net loss for me at this point is {$400.00}, {$200.00} of which is from this dispute gone wrong and vanished into thin air * XXXX XX/XX/year> Contacted both USAA and XXXX several times to explain the error, resulting in inaction each time with neither party taking responsibility for the error. XXXX essentially refused to speak to me about a way forward to resolve the charge in question as it involved another bank. XXXX XXXXustomer service would put me through endless transfers between departments and representatives, each time resulting in the agent allegedly exhausting options to help me further. XXXX XXXX agent actually told me this case is too complex and that they do not have a department capable of handling the issue. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> Initiated a XXXX call between USAA, XXXX, and myself to attempt to resolve the issue. During the call, the USAA agent discovered several discrepancies, which should be detailed in the case notes, to include XXXX chargeback date pre-dating the denied dispute decision, and a general unwillingness by XXXX to disclose information. \n- USAA Agent re-opened the case and escalated for review. She also included a request for documentation.\n\n- USAA Agent theorized that the money may be stuck somewhere in limbo in a USAA account, and that the issue may be resolved with a transaction ID number, which XXXX refused to provide at the time.\n\n- USAA Agent assured me that the case will be reviewed and that action/correspondence will occur between USAA and XXXX to resolve the banking error. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> Correspondence received for Request for Documentation, and case was closed without any action or remarks about the core issue. Correspondence consisted of transaction and supporting documentation used for the original decision, to include XXXX 's response to the dispute along with their policies on the money transfer function. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> I called USAA back for a status of the review and was informed that the case was closed. I re-explained the issue, and the agent re-opened the case. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> I once again received correspondence for Request for Documentation, the same exact ones sent earlier, once again without action or remarks for the outstanding banking error issue. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> I called XXXX to inquire about a transaction ID number for the XXXX XX/XX/year> chargeback, which the agent did provide this time but only verbally ( denied request to send written documentation ). The agent was difficult to understand due to his language barrier, but the XXXX ID, transcribed to the best of my ability, is : XXXX. \n\n* XXXX XX/XX/year> I called USAA resolutions team to once again re-explain the issue, leading us to this point with the case re-opened for review. XXXX recommended that I submit this document to detail this complex issue. \n\nTo summarize, as part of this flawed dispute process, XXXX alleges that they executed a {$200.00} Debit Card chargeback to USAA, which was not received on my end in USAA, meanwhile USAA made a decision against my favor for the dispute, resulting in {$200.00} vanishing between two major financial institutions. I am not arguing the outcome of the original dispute decision, I know that original {$200.00} is gone to the scammer for good. The glaring issue now is how two banks made an additional {$200.00} disappear, with one side claiming that they approved a chargeback, and the other stating the dispute was unsuccessful and did not receive any amount returned by XXXX. The net loss to me now is {$400.00} and many hours dealing with this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-21T20:48:42.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77459","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18207939","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-12-21T20:41:24.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To summarize, as part of this flawed <em>dispute</em> process, XXXX alleges that they executed a {$200.00} Debit Card chargeback to USAA, which was not received on my end in USAA, meanwhile USAA made a decision against my favor for the <em>dispute</em>, resulting in {$200.00} vanishing between two <em>major</em> financial institutions. I am not arguing the outcome of the original <em>dispute</em> decision, I know that original {$200.00} is gone to the scammer for good."]},"sort":[8.142252,"18207939"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7098947","_score":7.836361,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Equifax currently lists an incorrect name for me on my credit report. I have had bad customer service, but also Equifax appears to have lost sensitive personal information that I faxed in. Equifax 's dispute resolution process is deceptive because, although I followed the company 's clear instructions, it has not corrected my file. It is also unfair and abusive because it is taking advantage of the power differential between the company and me, and because the company continues to maintain that I have not taken steps that I have already taken. \n\nOn or around XX/XX/XXXX I started a mortgage loan application. My lender pulled my credit report from the 3 major agencies, including Equifax. I was alerted by my lender that they were unable to obtain a my credit report from Equifax and instructed me to call the company. \n\nOn or around XX/XX/XXXX, when I called Equifax, I learned that Equifax incorrectly listed my name on their report, which is what resulted in my lender being unable to access the report. This is concerning because -- although I legally changed my name 5 years ago when I married -- I have taken out several loans since then without a problem, and also have several creditors who furnish my current legal name, and those creditors actively furnish to Equifax and are visible on my credit. Equifax also listed an incorrect address. The customer service representative I spoke with initiated the address change dispute on the phone because he said he could verify the address using furnished data. He then instructed me to go to myEquifax.com to use the online dispute process to dispute my name. Immediately after the call I went to myEquifax and attempted to file a dispute, but was told that I could not initiate a dispute because I had just started one. \n\nThat day I called Equifax again and the customer service representative with whom I spoke informed me that the first dispute that was started on my phone call prevented me from initiating another dispute for 24 hours and that I needed to wait. \n\nThe next day, XX/XX/XXXX, I tried to start a new dispute online to dispute my name. I was able to select my name as the data point that I wished to dispute, fill out a narrative form about the issue, and upload supporting documents. The website stated that a drivers license was sufficient for a name dispute. However, when I attempted to file the dispute I was instructed that the dispute could not be completed online. \n\nStill on XX/XX/XXXX I called the Equifax customer service center again and explained the situation to a representative. The representative advised me that disputes to my name must be submitted my mail or fax and could not be uploaded on myEquifax 's dispute center. The rep indicated that this was because the documents needed to verify this dispute were sensitive, and so could not be uploaded. This is contrary to what I had been told the day before. This also contradicts the online dispute center itself, which allows users to select their name as the data point that they want to dispute using the online portal. At no point, online, does it indicate I could not use the portal. Additionally, the representative told me I would need to submit both my drivers license and my social security card. This also contradicts what the online dispute center states, as it indicates either of those documents would be sufficient. Additionally, ALL documents related to my credit file are sensitive, so it seems arbitrary to decide that name dispute can not be made online but that other types of disputes can be. I made these points to the representative but did not receive any helpful information. Then my call was dropped. \n\nI immediately called the customer service center again and repeated this exercise and eventually received the fax number to submit my documents. The representative also instructed me to include a cover letter explaining my dispute, and to fax the letter and supporting documents to the attention of the Dispute Department. \n\nOn Sunday, XX/XX/XXXX, I wrote a cover letter explaining my dispute and made copies of the front and back of my drivers license and of my social security card. I then called the customer service center again to confirm the fax number that I had received was correct, and was told that it was. I wanted to confirm the fax number because I would be sending out sensitive personal information. Specifically, this is the information that someone could use to lift the freeze on my credit file and open new credit accounts in my name. I then faxed the cover letter and supporting documents. I received a confirmation that the fax went through. I have attached the fax confirmation here, which shows the letter and supporting documents. \n\nWithin a day or two I was able to see the dispute on myEquifax 's dispute center. The dispute had confirmation number, XXXX, and a date submitted, which was listed as XX/XX/XXXX. It also listed that the dispute was \" Completed '' on XX/XX/XXXX. I did not see a change to my name on my credit file. \n\nOn or around XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from Equifax. I have included a copy of the letter here. The letter was dated XX/XX/XXXX and had the same dispute confirmation number : XXXX. The letter purports to give the \" results '' of the dispute, which are provided on page 3 of the 4 page letter. The letter states, under a section called \" The results of our reinvestigation '' that Equifax 's \" conclusions are : PLEASE SUBMIT A COPY OF YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, DRIVER 'S LICENSE AND/OR AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT TO UPDATE YOUR NAME. '' This is frustrating because I had submitted those very documents on XX/XX/XXXX, along with my cover letter, to which this XX/XX/XXXX letter from Equifax is a direct follow up. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I called Equifax again and ask why the do not have the supporting documents I had sent. The customer service rep confirmed the dispute using the XXXX confirmation number, but said that they do not have the documents and that I must send them. I explained that I had already sent them and was concerned that Equifax had apparently lost or misplaced them, given their sensitive nature. The rep said that the company 's fax machine was not working at the time that I faxed in my documents. I said that this could not be true since Equifax clearly received my cover letter disputing my name, since in response to the fax they generated a dispute number and send me the XX/XX/XXXX letter. The rep repeated that it was not possible and that I had to send in the requested documents. She said that the fax issued not being able to read incoming faxes. I replied that clearly they could read my cover letter because Equifax was able to identify the specific issue I wished to dispute and was able to read my name and address, which they used to send me the XX/XX/XXXX letter. The rep also confirmed that IU had used the correct fax number. The customer service rep and I went back and forth about this for several minutes -- her claiming that I could not have faxed the dispute and that I had to send in the supporting documents, and my replying that Equifax clearly received my fax with my cover letter and so asking for an explanation as to why the additional pages of the same fax were apparently lost. \n\nUltimately it was clear that I was not going to make any progress, so I confirmed the mailing address for the documents and informed the rep that I would be filing a complaint with the CFPB. I plan to mail the documents to Equifax after filing this complaint. \n\nThere are several problems with my experience. \n\nFirst, I am spending a significant amount of time addressing a problem I had no role in creating. I did not chose to have Equifax provide credit data for me, and the company is furnished with accurate data about my name ( and address ). \n\nSecond, the myEquifax 's online dispute center clearly indicates that users can open disputes related to their names and can upload supporting documents. \n\nThird, I was given misinformation by the initial customer service representatives when they also told me I could file my dispute online. \n\nFourth, when I did fax my dispute, Equifax lost of misplaced pages from the fax that contain extremely sensitive personal information. Again, it is clear that they received the fax itself since they used the cover letter that I included to generate a dispute and ask me for supporting information. \n\nFifth, at each stage, and especially during the XX/XX/XXXX call, the customer service representatives behave as though my experience, the prior information I had been provided, and the steps I took in response to that information, could not be true. The XX/XX/XXXX representative 's repeated response that I could not have faxed the information in on XX/XX/XXXX because the fax wasn't working was inappropriate, given the fact that the reps on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX instructed me to use the fax and the fact that my fax was clearly received. \n\nEach time I called the customer service center I had to go through a lengthly identification process and automated system before reaching these representatives, which made the entire experience all the more frustrating.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-10T21:50:44.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11205","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7098947","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-06-10T20:37:58.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Personal information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/XXXX I called Equifax again and ask why the do not have the supporting documents I had <em>sent</em>. The customer service rep confirmed the <em>dispute</em> using the XXXX confirmation number, but said that they do not have the documents and that I must send them. I explained that I had already <em>sent</em> them and was concerned that Equifax had apparently lost or misplaced them, given their sensitive nature."]},"sort":[7.836361,"7098947"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15768479","_score":7.381178,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT SUMMARY I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), and Privacy Act. Despite sending comprehensive, legally compliant dispute letters on XX/XX/year>, these agencies continue to report multiple inaccurate accounts, collection items, and personal information that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I. BACKGROUND AND DISPUTE SUBMISSION On XX/XX/year>, I submitted comprehensive, notarized dispute letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple accounts, collection items, and personal information on my credit reports. These disputes were sent via certified mail with proper legal notice, comprehensive federal law citations, and explicit rejection of automated verification systems. \n\nThe disputes documented systematic violations across all three bureaus and demanded immediate compliance with federal consumer protection statutes. \n\nXXXX. SYSTEMATIC FCRA VIOLATIONS BY AGENCY A. TRANSUNION LLC - MULTIPLE ACCOUNT VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXX CARD CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account previously disputed and marked \" resolved '' without proper validation Legal Basis : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), XXXX ( a ), XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX AUTO FINANCE ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$19000.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" dispute resolved '' without substantive investigation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing XXXX days past due Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) XXXX. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$52.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$190.00} balance Violation : Accounts marked \" disputed by consumer '' without proper debt validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Name Variations : \" XXXX XXXX '' and \" XXXX, XXXX, R '' Incorrect Addresses : Multiple XXXX, MD and XXXX XXXX, MD addresses Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INCXXXX - SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX  CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without proper validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e, 1692g 2. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$19000.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without substantive investigation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing 180 days past due Account Balances : {$1900.00}, {$2900.00} Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) 4. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : {$1000.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collections ( Multiple ) : {$910.00}, {$780.00}, {$470.00} balances Violation : Debt buyer reporting without proper chain of title, marked \" Dispute Resolved - Consumer Disagrees '' Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Name Variations : \" XXXX XXXX '' and \" XXXX XXXX '' XXXX Addresses : Multiple Maryland addresses and incorrect zip code Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC - COLLECTION ACCOUNT VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account showing extensive charge-off history without proper validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e, 1692g 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing XXXX days past due Account Balances : {$1900.00}, {$2900.00} Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : XXXX U.S.C . 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) XXXX. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$1000.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$52.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collections ( Multiple ) : {$910.00}, {$780.00}, {$470.00} balances XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$190.00} balance Violation : Multiple collection accounts marked \" Consumer disputes this account information '' or \" Consumer disputes after resolution '' Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Addresses : XXXX, MD address Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Accuracy Requirements : All three agencies continue to report disputed information without proper verification, violating accuracy standards.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Investigation Requirements : All three agencies have failed to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed accounts, with many marked as \" resolved '' or \" dispute resolved '' without substantive verification.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Results Notification : Agencies have failed to provide proper written results of investigations showing verification methods.\n\nB. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1692e - False Representations : Multiple collection accounts continue reporting without proper debt validation.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692g - Debt Validation : Collection agencies and credit bureaus have failed to provide proper debt validation documentation.\n\nC. Privacy Act Violations 5 U.S.C. 552a ( e ) ( 5 ) - Accuracy Requirements : Personal information inaccuracies violate federal accuracy requirements. \n\nXXXX XXXX Federal Precedent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX. : Establishes duty for reasonable investigation beyond automated verification and prohibits reliance solely on furnisher verification. \n\nXXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX : Establishes liability for continued reporting after notice of inaccuracy. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX : Defines willful noncompliance standard for statutory damages. \n\nIV. EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS A. Comprehensive Legal Notice All dispute letters sent XX/XX/year> with comprehensive federal law citations Explicit rejection of automated verification systems ( E-Oscar ) Proper notarization and certified mail service Detailed debt validation demands under FDCPA XXXX. Pattern of Non-Compliance TransUnion : Multiple charge-off accounts, student loans, and collections with inadequate investigation Experian : Accounts marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without proper validation Equifax : XXXX collection accounts marked \" Consumer disputes '' without resolution XXXX Constitutional Violations Fifth Amendment Due Process : Denial of fair procedures for dispute resolution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection : Discriminatory application of investigation standards V. HARM TO CONSUMER A. Credit Score Impact The continued reporting of inaccurate information severely impacts my credit scores : Equifax FICO XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) TransUnion XXXX XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) Experian FICO XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) B. Access to Credit Inaccurate reporting prevents access to credit on favorable terms and affects employment opportunities.\n\nC. Financial Harm Higher interest rates and denied credit applications result in quantifiable financial damages.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-06T15:26:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"21202","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15768479","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-06T15:25:40.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["DETAILED <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> I. BACKGROUND AND <em>DISPUTE</em> SUBMISSION On XX/XX/year>, I submitted comprehensive, notarized <em>dispute</em> letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple accounts, collection items, and personal information on my credit reports. These <em>disputes</em> were <em>sent</em> via certified mail with proper legal notice, comprehensive federal law citations, and explicit rejection of automated verification systems."]},"sort":[7.381178,"15768479"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15768210","_score":7.381178,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT SUMMARY I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), and Privacy Act. Despite sending comprehensive, legally compliant dispute letters on XX/XX/year>, these agencies continue to report multiple inaccurate accounts, collection items, and personal information that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I. BACKGROUND AND DISPUTE SUBMISSION On XX/XX/year>, I submitted comprehensive, notarized dispute letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple accounts, collection items, and personal information on my credit reports. These disputes were sent via certified mail with proper legal notice, comprehensive federal law citations, and explicit rejection of automated verification systems. \n\nThe disputes documented systematic violations across all three bureaus and demanded immediate compliance with federal consumer protection statutes. \n\nXXXX. SYSTEMATIC FCRA VIOLATIONS BY AGENCY A. TRANSUNION LLC - MULTIPLE ACCOUNT VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXX CARD CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account previously disputed and marked \" resolved '' without proper validation Legal Basis : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), XXXX ( a ), XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX AUTO FINANCE ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$19000.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" dispute resolved '' without substantive investigation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing XXXX days past due Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) XXXX. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$52.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$190.00} balance Violation : Accounts marked \" disputed by consumer '' without proper debt validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Name Variations : \" XXXX XXXX '' and \" XXXX, XXXX, R '' Incorrect Addresses : Multiple XXXX, MD and XXXX XXXX, MD addresses Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INCXXXX - SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX  CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without proper validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e, 1692g 2. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$19000.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without substantive investigation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing 180 days past due Account Balances : {$1900.00}, {$2900.00} Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) 4. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : {$1000.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collections ( Multiple ) : {$910.00}, {$780.00}, {$470.00} balances Violation : Debt buyer reporting without proper chain of title, marked \" Dispute Resolved - Consumer Disagrees '' Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Name Variations : \" XXXX XXXX '' and \" XXXX XXXX '' XXXX Addresses : Multiple Maryland addresses and incorrect zip code Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC - COLLECTION ACCOUNT VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account showing extensive charge-off history without proper validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e, 1692g 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing XXXX days past due Account Balances : {$1900.00}, {$2900.00} Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : XXXX U.S.C . 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) XXXX. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$1000.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$52.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collections ( Multiple ) : {$910.00}, {$780.00}, {$470.00} balances XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$190.00} balance Violation : Multiple collection accounts marked \" Consumer disputes this account information '' or \" Consumer disputes after resolution '' Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Addresses : XXXX, MD address Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Accuracy Requirements : All three agencies continue to report disputed information without proper verification, violating accuracy standards.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Investigation Requirements : All three agencies have failed to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed accounts, with many marked as \" resolved '' or \" dispute resolved '' without substantive verification.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Results Notification : Agencies have failed to provide proper written results of investigations showing verification methods.\n\nB. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1692e - False Representations : Multiple collection accounts continue reporting without proper debt validation.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692g - Debt Validation : Collection agencies and credit bureaus have failed to provide proper debt validation documentation.\n\nC. Privacy Act Violations 5 U.S.C. 552a ( e ) ( 5 ) - Accuracy Requirements : Personal information inaccuracies violate federal accuracy requirements. \n\nXXXX XXXX Federal Precedent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX. : Establishes duty for reasonable investigation beyond automated verification and prohibits reliance solely on furnisher verification. \n\nXXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX : Establishes liability for continued reporting after notice of inaccuracy. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX : Defines willful noncompliance standard for statutory damages. \n\nIV. EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS A. Comprehensive Legal Notice All dispute letters sent XX/XX/year> with comprehensive federal law citations Explicit rejection of automated verification systems ( E-Oscar ) Proper notarization and certified mail service Detailed debt validation demands under FDCPA XXXX. Pattern of Non-Compliance TransUnion : Multiple charge-off accounts, student loans, and collections with inadequate investigation Experian : Accounts marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without proper validation Equifax : XXXX collection accounts marked \" Consumer disputes '' without resolution XXXX Constitutional Violations Fifth Amendment Due Process : Denial of fair procedures for dispute resolution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection : Discriminatory application of investigation standards V. HARM TO CONSUMER A. Credit Score Impact The continued reporting of inaccurate information severely impacts my credit scores : Equifax FICO XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) TransUnion XXXX XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) Experian FICO XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) B. Access to Credit Inaccurate reporting prevents access to credit on favorable terms and affects employment opportunities.\n\nC. Financial Harm Higher interest rates and denied credit applications result in quantifiable financial damages.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-06T15:26:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"21202","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15768210","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-06T14:43:40.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["DETAILED <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> I. BACKGROUND AND <em>DISPUTE</em> SUBMISSION On XX/XX/year>, I submitted comprehensive, notarized <em>dispute</em> letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple accounts, collection items, and personal information on my credit reports. These <em>disputes</em> were <em>sent</em> via certified mail with proper legal notice, comprehensive federal law citations, and explicit rejection of automated verification systems."]},"sort":[7.381178,"15768210"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15768480","_score":7.364684,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT SUMMARY I am filing this complaint against all three major credit reporting agencies for systematic violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), and Privacy Act. Despite sending comprehensive, legally compliant dispute letters on XX/XX/year>, these agencies continue to report multiple inaccurate accounts, collection items, and personal information that violate federal consumer protection law. \n\nDETAILED COMPLAINT NARRATIVE I. BACKGROUND AND DISPUTE SUBMISSION On XX/XX/year>, I submitted comprehensive, notarized dispute letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple accounts, collection items, and personal information on my credit reports. These disputes were sent via certified mail with proper legal notice, comprehensive federal law citations, and explicit rejection of automated verification systems. \n\nThe disputes documented systematic violations across all three bureaus and demanded immediate compliance with federal consumer protection statutes. \n\nXXXX. SYSTEMATIC FCRA VIOLATIONS BY AGENCY A. TRANSUNION LLC - MULTIPLE ACCOUNT VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXX CARD CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account previously disputed and marked \" resolved '' without proper validation Legal Basis : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), XXXX ( a ), XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX AUTO FINANCE ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$19000.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" dispute resolved '' without substantive investigation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing XXXX days past due Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) XXXX. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$52.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$190.00} balance Violation : Accounts marked \" disputed by consumer '' without proper debt validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Name Variations : \" XXXX XXXX '' and \" XXXX, XXXX, R '' Incorrect Addresses : Multiple XXXX, MD and XXXX XXXX, MD addresses Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INCXXXX - SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX  CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without proper validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e, 1692g 2. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$19000.00} balance Violation : Account marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without substantive investigation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e 3. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing 180 days past due Account Balances : {$1900.00}, {$2900.00} Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) 4. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : {$1000.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collections ( Multiple ) : {$910.00}, {$780.00}, {$470.00} balances Violation : Debt buyer reporting without proper chain of title, marked \" Dispute Resolved - Consumer Disagrees '' Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Name Variations : \" XXXX XXXX '' and \" XXXX XXXX '' XXXX Addresses : Multiple Maryland addresses and incorrect zip code Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC - COLLECTION ACCOUNT VIOLATIONS Disputed Accounts with Continued Violations : XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX CHARGE-OFF ACCOUNT Status : Charge-off with {$4300.00} balance Violation : Account showing extensive charge-off history without proper validation Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), 1692e, 1692g 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ACCOUNTS ( Multiple ) Status : Multiple accounts showing XXXX days past due Account Balances : {$1900.00}, {$2900.00} Violation : Inaccurate payment history and delinquency reporting Legal Basis : XXXX U.S.C . 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ) XXXX. COLLECTION ACCOUNTS : XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$1000.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : {$52.00} balance XXXX XXXX XXXX Collections ( Multiple ) : {$910.00}, {$780.00}, {$470.00} balances XXXX XXXX XXXX Collection : {$190.00} balance Violation : Multiple collection accounts marked \" Consumer disputes this account information '' or \" Consumer disputes after resolution '' Legal Basis : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), 1692e, 1692g Personal Information Violations : Incorrect Addresses : XXXX, MD address Incorrect Employment : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) - Accuracy Requirements : All three agencies continue to report disputed information without proper verification, violating accuracy standards.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) - Investigation Requirements : All three agencies have failed to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed accounts, with many marked as \" resolved '' or \" dispute resolved '' without substantive verification.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) - Results Notification : Agencies have failed to provide proper written results of investigations showing verification methods.\n\nB. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations 15 U.S.C. 1692e - False Representations : Multiple collection accounts continue reporting without proper debt validation.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1692g - Debt Validation : Collection agencies and credit bureaus have failed to provide proper debt validation documentation.\n\nC. Privacy Act Violations 5 U.S.C. 552a ( e ) ( 5 ) - Accuracy Requirements : Personal information inaccuracies violate federal accuracy requirements. \n\nXXXX XXXX Federal Precedent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX. : Establishes duty for reasonable investigation beyond automated verification and prohibits reliance solely on furnisher verification. \n\nXXXX XXXX Trans Union XXXX : Establishes liability for continued reporting after notice of inaccuracy. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX : Defines willful noncompliance standard for statutory damages. \n\nIV. EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS A. Comprehensive Legal Notice All dispute letters sent XX/XX/year> with comprehensive federal law citations Explicit rejection of automated verification systems ( E-Oscar ) Proper notarization and certified mail service Detailed debt validation demands under FDCPA XXXX. Pattern of Non-Compliance TransUnion : Multiple charge-off accounts, student loans, and collections with inadequate investigation Experian : Accounts marked \" Previously In Dispute - Now Resolved '' without proper validation Equifax : XXXX collection accounts marked \" Consumer disputes '' without resolution XXXX Constitutional Violations Fifth Amendment Due Process : Denial of fair procedures for dispute resolution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection : Discriminatory application of investigation standards V. HARM TO CONSUMER A. Credit Score Impact The continued reporting of inaccurate information severely impacts my credit scores : Equifax FICO XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) TransUnion XXXX XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) Experian FICO XXXX : XXXX ( Poor ) B. Access to Credit Inaccurate reporting prevents access to credit on favorable terms and affects employment opportunities.\n\nC. Financial Harm Higher interest rates and denied credit applications result in quantifiable financial damages.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-06T15:26:07.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"21202","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15768480","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-06T15:25:40.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["DETAILED <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> I. BACKGROUND AND <em>DISPUTE</em> SUBMISSION On XX/XX/year>, I submitted comprehensive, notarized <em>dispute</em> letters to all three credit reporting agencies challenging the accuracy of multiple accounts, collection items, and personal information on my credit reports. These <em>disputes</em> were <em>sent</em> via certified mail with proper legal notice, comprehensive federal law citations, and explicit rejection of automated verification systems."]},"sort":[7.364684,"15768480"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17217145","_score":7.1005797,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because the account being reported by Jefferson Capital Systems is inaccurate, unverifiable, and has not been properly validated despite multiple written disputes submitted to the credit reporting agencies and directly to the furnisher. The account appears on my credit report as a collection/charge-off with an alleged past-due balance of approximately {$2500.00}. The reporting appears to show that the account was acquired or placed with Jefferson Capital Systems sometime after the original creditor charged it off. However, the information presented on my credit reports does not match any documentation I have ever received, and Jefferson Capital has not provided any proof that the debt is valid, that they have the legal right to report it, or that any of the information they are furnishing is accurate. \n\nBecause of the substantial negative impact this reporting has had on my credit profile, and because none of the required documents have been produced after multiple dispute attempts, I believe that Jefferson Capital Systems has failed to comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). This narrative outlines in detail what happened, the actions I took, the actions ( or lack of actions ) taken by Jefferson Capital and the credit bureaus, the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the reporting, and the harm that has resulted from the failure to properly validate and verify this account. \n\n1. How the issue was discovered In early XXXX, I obtained my credit reports from the three major credit reporting agenciesXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXto review my financial history for accuracy. When reviewing these reports, I noticed a collection account reported by Jefferson Capital Systems. The tradeline was listed as a collection/charge-off with a derogatory status and an alleged past-due balance of approximately {$2500.00}. The account did not include clear information regarding : The original creditor When Jefferson Capital acquired the debt Whether the debt was purchased, assigned, or transferred The date of first delinquency Any original contract associated with the alleged account Any billing history from the original creditor The absence of this information raised immediate concerns, especially because I had not received documentation from Jefferson Capital showing proof of ownership, proof of assignment, or validation of the debt. \n\n2. First rounds of disputes submitted to the credit bureaus Between XXXX and XX/XX/year>, I submitted formal written disputes to TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. In these disputes, I included the following concerns : I did not receive original creditor documentation proving that I owed the alleged amount. \n\nI never received a notice of assignment or transfer showing Jefferson Capital owned the account. \n\nI never received a debt validation letter from Jefferson Capital Systems as required under FDCPA 809 ( b ). \n\nThe reporting contained inaccurate or missing fields, including unclear dates and inconsistent ownership information. \n\nIn each dispute, I requested a full reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) and demanded that the bureaus supply the method of verification required under 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). I also explained that Jefferson Capital must provide : A copy of the original signed contract or application A complete breakdown of the accounts balance A full accounting history Proof that the company owns or has legal authority over the debt Copies of billing statements and payment records A copy of the charge-off documentation from the original creditor The credit bureaus responded with generic template statements saying the furnisher had verified the account as accurate, but no documentation whatsoever was provided. This indicated that the verification was likely an automated e-Oscar response from Jefferson Capital Systems, not a meaningful reinvestigation. \n\n3. Follow-up disputes to Jefferson Capital Systems After receiving generic responses from the credit bureaus, I sent direct written requests to Jefferson Capital Systems asking for validation of the debt under FDCPA 809 ( b ). I asked for : The original signed contract or application A copy of the original creditors statements A detailed ledger or accounting history The date the debt allegedly went delinquent Proof that Jefferson Capital purchased or was assigned the debt Copies of all notices sent to me Any documents they used to verify the debt to the credit bureaus Jefferson Capital Systems did not provide any of the requested documents. Instead, the account continued to appear on my credit reports as verified, even though no proof was ever supplied to me showing that the account was valid or that Jefferson Capital had the right to report it. \n\n4. Issues with the reporting itself As I examined the tradeline more closely, I identified numerous inconsistencies and missing elements, including : a. No proof of original creditor The credit report did not clearly identify : Who the original creditor was When the account was opened When the account allegedly went delinquent Why the account was charged off This information is required for any collection account to be reported accurately. \n\nb. No date of first delinquency ( DOFD ) The DOFD is required under FCRA for aging and retention purposes. Jefferson Capital did not provide this date, making the account impossible to age correctly and raising concerns about re-aging ( an unlawful practice ). \n\nc. Inconsistent or incomplete balance information The account shows a balance of approximately {$2500.00}, but Jefferson Capital did not provide : A breakdown of how this amount was calculated Whether interest or fees were added Whether the balance includes original creditor charges d. No substantiation for any late payments Some reports show late payment indicators, but Jefferson Capital has not produced any statements or transaction histories to support these claims. \n\ne. No evidence of assignment or legal ownership Jefferson Capital Systems did not provide : A contract of assignment A bill of sale A portfolio transfer document Any record showing they legally purchased or are otherwise authorized to report the alleged debt Without this proof, the reporting appears to violate both the FCRA and FDCPA. \n\n5. Failure to provide validation under FDCPA Under FDCPA 809 ( b ) : A debt collector must cease collection activity until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt. \n\nBecause Jefferson Capital did not provide validation materialsincluding the original contract or itemized statementJefferson Capital was required to : Stop reporting the debt Stop collection attempts Remove the entry Instead, the account continued to be reported. \n\nReporting a debt to a credit bureau is considered collection activity under federal law. Therefore : Jefferson Capital should not have reported the account Jefferson Capital should not have verified the account The credit bureaus should not have continued publishing it The continued reporting may constitute unlawful collection activity 6. Inadequate reinvestigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) The credit bureaus ' reinvestigation processes do not appear to meet FCRA standards for the following reasons : They relied exclusively on automated e-Oscar responses. \n\nNo documentation was reviewed or provided. \n\nNone of the disputes addressed missing DOFD information. \n\nNone of the disputes resulted in a corrected or clarified report. \n\nNo bureau provided the legally required method of verification. \n\nThis indicates the bureaus : Did not perform a meaningful reinvestigation Did not evaluate the evidence Accepted unverified data from Jefferson Capital without question This constitutes a failure under FCRA requirements. \n\n7. Violations of FCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum possible accuracy Jefferson Capital Systems has a legal responsibility to ensure maximum possible accuracy of all reported information. This includes : Correct dates Valid balances Accurate creditor information Proper account status Clear ownership history No missing DOFD Because Jefferson Capital provided none of this information, the reporting does not meet the accuracy standard. \n\n8. Violations of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Duty to report disputes Some credit reports did not reflect the mandatory dispute notation : Consumer disputes this account. \n\nThis omission misrepresents the account to lenders and violates federal law. \n\n9. Violations of FCRA 623 ( b ) Duty to investigate Jefferson Capital Systems is required to : Conduct a reasonable investigation Review all information provided by the consumer Provide corrected data to the bureaus Delete information that can not be verified Jefferson Capital ignored all of these obligations. \n\n10. Harm caused by inaccurate and unverifiable reporting The continued appearance of this unverifiable collection account has caused significant and measurable harm, including : Reduced credit score Denial of credit applications Increased interest rates Higher insurance premiums Emotional distress and frustration Time lost trying to resolve the discrepancies Difficulty refinancing loans Loss of access to favorable financial opportunities This harm continues every month the account remains on my reports. \n\n11. Summary of my actions To resolve this matter, I : Obtained my credit reports Identified inaccuracies in the Jefferson Capital tradeline Filed disputes with all bureaus Requested method of verification Sent validation requests to Jefferson Capital Requested documentation proving ownership Provided clear written explanations Filed multiple follow-up disputes Gave both the bureaus and Jefferson Capital time to respond Filed this CFPB complaint as a last resort Despite all steps taken, Jefferson Capital Systems has not provided evidence proving the account is valid. \n\n12. Why CFPB intervention is required CFPB involvement is necessary because : Jefferson Capital did not validate the debt The credit bureaus did not perform a real reinvestigation The method of verification was not disclosed The account contains multiple inconsistencies Jefferson Capital may have violated the FDCPA The credit bureaus may have violated the FCRA The continued reporting is causing ongoing harm I have exhausted all options available to me outside of regulatory action. \n\nConclusion The account being reported by Jefferson Capital Systems is inaccurate, incomplete, unverifiable, and harmful. Jefferson Capital has not validated the debt, has not provided any original documentation, has not proven ownership, and has not complied with federal laws governing credit reporting and debt collection. The credit bureaus have not conducted a meaningful reinvestigation, relying instead on automated responses. \n\nBecause of the failure to validate, the account should not be on my credit report at all. I am requesting the CFPBs assistance to require Jefferson Capital Systems and the credit bureaus to either : Provide full documentation and validation, or Delete the account entirely, as required under federal law. \n\nI respectfully request that the CFPB intervene to ensure compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA and to restore accuracy to my credit reports.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T00:51:56.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"63379","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17217145","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CL Holdings LLC","date_received":"2025-11-14T00:45:42.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Summary of my actions To resolve this matter, I : Obtained my credit reports Identified inaccuracies in the Jefferson Capital tradeline Filed <em>disputes</em> with all bureaus Requested method of verification <em>Sent</em> validation requests to Jefferson Capital Requested documentation proving ownership Provided clear written explanations Filed multiple follow-up <em>disputes</em> Gave both the bureaus and Jefferson Capital time to respond Filed this CFPB <em>complaint</em> as a last resort Despite all steps taken, Jefferson Capital"]},"sort":[7.1005797,"17217145"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15263865","_score":7.03897,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"The relevant population is XXXX students who first enrolled between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and who owe debt directly to the University. Other debt, including, but not limited to, federal student loans are not affected by the settlement agreement. If you have questions about any existing student loan debts you may have, please contact your loan servicer for more information. If you need assistance with student loans please use this website XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  or call XXXX Your enrollment date is XXXX, and you do not have a balance due to the University, therefore your account is not part of the FTC settlement. \n\n\n\nIf you have additional questions, please refer to our microsite at XXXX or XXXX Regards, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is not true as I was in school during the time alloted - See below XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX to me Dear XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX for contacting XXXX. Our CEO, XXXX XXXX, has requested that a member of the Ombudsman Team contact you directly for additional information and follow-up. Our main focus is to address any underlying concerns and ensure our customers always have the right information. Your account has been assigned, and we will contact you in writing within XXXX business days. We also will keep XXXX XXXX apprised of the resolution. \n\n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\nXXXX Ombudsman XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Phone XXXX | Fax XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX mohela.com Dear XXXX XXXX, I hope this message finds you well. My name is XXXX XXXX, and I am writing to formally request your review and assistance regarding my federal student loans currently serviced by XXXX. This request pertains to a XXXX XXXX to XXXX  application, which has not been updated since XX/XX/XXXX, as well as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) payment discrepancies. \nI have faithfully served in the field of education for over XXXX years, dedicating my career to teaching and supporting students. Despite this, my XXXX account only reflects XXXX qualifying payments, which I believe significantly underrepresents my actual service time. I respectfully request a full audit and correction of my XXXX  payment count. \nIn addition, I am asking for the removal of these student loans from my credit report and for the balance to be zeroed out based on the pending XXXX XXXX application and my ongoing service as an educator. This request is made not only on the grounds of fairness and eligibility, but also out of urgent personal need. \nMy partner and I are expecting a child soon, and we are currently working toward purchasing our first home. These student loan issues are creating major barriers in our lives during what should be a joyful and exciting chapter. As a committed educator and public servant, I am simply asking for a chance to live a stable, decent life while continuing to serve our children and communities. \nAll supporting documents have been attached for your review. I kindly and respectfully ask for your support in helping bring a resolution to this matter. \nName : XXXX XXXX Last XXXX of XXXX : XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Thank you very much for your time, compassion, and consideration. I would be grateful for any assistance you can provide. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX sent directly to them as it's been XXXX  months and XXXX  years exactly on XX/XX/XXXX which I sent in my borrowers defense claim with no response. \n\nSubject : Request for Student Loan Discharge and Credit Report XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Attachments XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX to info, XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX I hope you're doing well. My name is XXXX XXXX, and XXXX writing to request your help regarding my federal student loans with XXXX. \n\nI submitted a XXXX XXXX application that has not been updated since XX/XX/XXXX. In addition, my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) record only reflects XXXX payments, though Ive been an educator for over XXXX  years and believe this number should be significantly higher. \n\nI respectfully ask that my loans be removed from my credit report and that my account be zeroed out based on these concerns. My partner and I are expecting a child and trying to buy our first home, and resolving this would make a huge difference in our lives. \n\nPlease find attached the necessary documents for your review. I deeply appreciate your time and consideration. \n\nBest regards, XXXX XXXX Last XXXX of XXXX : XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX In addition, the XXXX credit bureaus have my name as XXXX XXXX which my name has never been that, I receive mail and phone calls based on this inaccurate name change that has occurred for year. Another letter I'll be sending out today. \n\nCategory : Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report Complaint Narrative : I am filing this complaint because my credit report contains inaccurate and unverified information that has not been corrected despite multiple disputes over the past XXXX years. \n\nIncorrect Personal Information : My name is being reported as XXXX XXXX. This is not my name. I have received calls and mail from other agencies attempting to reach XXXX XXXX, which clearly indicates a case of mistaken identity. \n\nIncorrect XXXX XXXX XXXX : My student loan account is showing as delinquent. This is incorrect because I have the required payment count for the loan to be current. Despite providing this information previously, the error has not been corrected. \n\nFailure to Properly Investigate : Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 611 ( a ), the credit bureau and/or furnisher is required to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information. They have failed to do so. \n\nLack of Proper Verification : I requested verification of the account, including the original purchase agreement, but have not been provided with valid documentation. \n\nI am requesting : Immediate deletion of the inaccurate account ( XXXX ) from my credit file A copy of the original purchase agreement and documentation used to verify the account Statutory damages of {$1000.00} for violations of the FCRA and FDCPA The ongoing reporting of false information is causing me financial harm, including difficulty obtaining credit and housing. \n\nYour federal loan account numbers are listed below : Loan Type Account Number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-13T17:27:33.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"35215","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15263865","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Servicer under contract with Federal Student Aid","date_received":"2025-08-13T16:23:21.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Category : Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : I am filing this <em>complaint</em> because my credit report contains inaccurate and unverified information that has not been corrected despite multiple <em>disputes</em> over the past XXXX years. \n\nIncorrect Personal Information : My name is being reported as XXXX XXXX. This is not my name."]},"sort":[7.03897,"15263865"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14463946","_score":6.9126925,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary. \nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically their refusal to provide verification documentation related to the XXXX dispute, as required under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis. This is not a re-dispute. \nReference : Disputed XXXX XXXX account beginning with XXXX ( Transunion and Experian format ) or ending in XXXX ( Equifax format ), depending on the formatting used. This account currently reflects a charge-off status, past due balance {$5000.00}, Credit limit {$4000.00} and derogatory payment history on my credit report. \nSubject : Complaint Against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for FCRA Violations Improper Verification of a XXXX Account and Refusal to Provide Verification Documentation ( FCRA 1681g, 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), and Related Provisions Narrative This complaint is directed against the XXXX nationwide consumer reporting agencies Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for willfully and negligently violating multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my dispute regarding an inaccurate and unverifiable tradeline from XXXX XXXX. \nBackground Facts The XXXX tradeline has been the subject of prior disputes and legal inquiries, with certified dispute letters sent in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a supplemental dispute to Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax identifying the XXXX XXXX as unverifiable, incomplete, and misleading, and specifically requested : - Full payment history - Signed agreements - Itemized statements - Proof of debt ownership or immediate deletion if documentation could not be produced.\n\nThis dispute cited FCRA 607 ( b ) and 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and demanded compliance. To date, no documentation has been provided by either XXXX or the credit reporting agencies. The tradeline remains legally unverifiable and must be deleted. \nXXXX failed to respond to the dispute and did not furnish any signed contracts, transactional records, or itemized billing history, undermining any claim of verification. \nExperian marked the tradeline as Verified and Updated, but failed to produce any new data or explanation. This suggests the investigation was superficial or automated a likely violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ). \nExperian altered the past due as of date from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX without any legitimate basis or new account activity a post hoc manipulation that falsely extends the accounts derogatory status and misrepresents account activity in violation of FCRA 1681e ( b ) and 607 ( b ) TransUnion returned a similarly vague outcome, labeling the account as 'verified ' without providing any documentation from XXXX or describing the method of verification. \nTransUnion and XXXX report a XXXX XXXX of {$5000.00}, while simultaneously reporting a charge-off and current balance of {$5000.00} exceeding the {$4000.00} credit limit. No documentation has been provided to justify the {$4.00} discrepancy, nor explain how or when this high balance occurred. The inconsistency raises concerns of unverified interest, fees, or internal reporting inflation, and violates the requirement for maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ). This High Balance was not disclosed in earlier reports, and its appearance only after my dispute suggests a possible post hoc or reconstructed update, not a verified fact. Without itemized statements or creditor explanation, this change is unverifiable and must be treated as such under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). \nBalance and Timeline Inconsistencies o The Transunion dispute result report labels the account as having an Original Charge-off of {$5000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX, yet separately lists a High Balance of {$5000.00} a value that exceeds the charge-off amount. Since charge-off represents the final balance deemed uncollectible, a higher balance appearing after the account was charged off is both procedurally and logically inconsistent. \no Furthermore, the term Original Charge-off misleadingly implies that there were multiple charge-off events, but no additional charge-off dates or updates are listed. There is also no date provided for when the High Balance occurred, nor was any supporting documentation offered.\n\no These inconsistencies violate the Fair Credit Reporting Acts standard for maximum possible accuracy ( FCRA 607 ( b ) ) and materially misrepresent the nature of the debt. The CRAs updated this account without verifying its accuracy or ensuring consistency between fields. \nThe charge-off balance ( {$5000.00} ) exceeds the original credit limit ( {$4000.00} ), raising major concerns about unverifiable over-limit fees or interest which must be validated but were not. \nNo payments or updates have occurred since XX/XX/XXXX, yet the account is still listed as updated as of XX/XX/XXXX likely using stale or recycled data. This violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). \nThe reported account balance exceeds the credit limit, suggesting unverified fees or interest accruals, which were neither explained nor validated during the reinvestigation. \nScheduled payment and actual payment history remain at {$0.00} for over XXXX  months, yet the account is still reported as a valid, active charge-off contradicting the requirement to report accurate and current data. \nNone of the CRAs provided notice of the changes made to the tradeline, violating FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), which mandates that consumers be informed of results and the method used during reinvestigation. \nUnverified Account Elements : XXXX failed to produce any of the following when requested through dispute or reinvestigation : Itemized balance history or account statements Signed applications or cardholder agreements Records of authorized or signed transactions Evidence of mailed or delivered late payment/charge-off notices Proof of consent to fees, interest, or terms of credit Full payment posting history Evidence of ownership or authorization to report the debt The absence of this documentation from both the furnisher and the CRAs shows that the account was not properly verified and remains unsubstantiated under FCRA standards. These failures also likely violate : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which prohibits inclusion of information that can not be verified as accurate and complete XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business Failure of the Verification Process Only XXXX Possibilities, Both Unlawful : 1. Reliance on e-OSCAR System Checkbox Responses : If the CRAs relied solely on automated responses from the furnisher via the e-OSCAR platform without reviewing actual documentation they failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation in violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) and 607 ( b ). Such blind reliance is negligent and fails to meet the standard of maximum possible accuracy.\n\n2. Review of Incomplete or Unsent Documentation : If the CRAs received documentation from XXXX  XXXX and either : o Chose not to review it ; or o Reviewed it but ignored the lack of responsive data ; Then they engaged in willful violations of FCRA 1681i, 1681g, and possibly 616617 concerning civil liability.\n\nViolation of the 30-Day Deadline ( Equifax and XXXX Bank ) : As of this filing, Equifax has failed to provide the results of its reinvestigation, despite receiving my dispute by certified mail on XX/XX/XXXX. This exceeds the XXXX limit established under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) and 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ). The disputed XXXX tradeline continues to appear on my report ( as confirmed via XXXX XXXX ), despite no timely reinvestigation result being issued. An immediate deletion of the account is a must. \nFurthermore, XXXX XXXX failed to respond to my direct dispute within this 30-day period, and did not supply any of the required verification documents ( e.g., signed agreements, billing records, proof of ownership ). The continued presence of this tradeline after the expiration of the statutory reinvestigation period without verified supporting evidence constitutes a violation of the FCRA and triggers the CRAs duty to delete the account under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). An immediate deletion of the account is a must.\n\nFailure to Provide Required Disclosures : All three CRAs failed to com\nply with FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) and 1681g, which require : The method of verification Documentation or evidence reviewed Name and contact information of the verifying party Key Violations Include : 1. FCRA 1681i Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation 2. FCRA 1681e ( b ) / 607 ( b ) Failure to Ensure Maximum Possible Accuracy 3. FCRA 1681g / 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to Provide Verification Method and Documentation 4. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) Failure to Notify of Dispute Outcome Properly 5. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Obligation to Delete Tradeline When Information Can not Be Verified Any continued attestation that this account is verified or updated without producing responsive documentation may constitute false certification, constructive fraud, or deceptive practices in violation of federal and state laws. \nLEGAL NOTICE AND FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION I am documenting this matter in good faith and notifying all parties that, unless this unverifiable tradeline is permanently deleted from my credit file within XXXX calendar days, I will proceed with formal legal escalation. This includes : Filing small claims lawsuits against each CRA in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Filing complaints with the XXXX XXXX State Attorney General and XXXX XXXX XXXX Submitting additional FCRA claims to federal regulators This is not a demand for financial compensation, but a legal demand for the immediate and permanent deletion of the unverified tradeline. If deletion occurs in good faith within the timeframe stated, I will consider the matter resolved and will not pursue further action.\n\nDocumentation Request Under FCRA Pursuant to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) and 1681g, this communication also serves as my formal request for all records, data, and descriptions of the procedures used to verify the accuracy and completeness of the XXXX XXXX  account referenced in this complaint. \nPlease provide : The method of verification, All documentation or evidence reviewed, and The name and contact information of the party who verified the account. \nThis information must be provided within XXXX calendar days of this notice, in accordance with federal law. \nPlease refer to the attached Exhibit Index for a complete list of supporting documentation Respectfully Submitted, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-05T00:09:43.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14463946","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-05T00:09:17.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Clarification : This <em>complaint</em> is separate and distinct from any previously filed <em>complaints</em> against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically their refusal to provide verification documentation related to the XXXX <em>dispute</em>, as required under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis. This is not a re-<em>dispute</em>."]},"sort":[6.9126925,"14463946"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14460708","_score":6.8964067,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary. \nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically their refusal to provide verification documentation related to the XXXX dispute, as required under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis. This is not a re-dispute. \nReference : Disputed XXXX XXXX account beginning with XXXX ( Transunion and Experian format ) or ending in XXXX ( Equifax format ), depending on the formatting used. This account currently reflects a charge-off status, past due balance {$5000.00}, Credit limit {$4000.00} and derogatory payment history on my credit report. \nSubject : Complaint Against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for FCRA Violations Improper Verification of a XXXX Account and Refusal to Provide Verification Documentation ( FCRA 1681g, 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), and Related Provisions Narrative This complaint is directed against the XXXX nationwide consumer reporting agencies Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion for willfully and negligently violating multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in their handling of my dispute regarding an inaccurate and unverifiable tradeline from XXXX XXXX. \nBackground Facts The XXXX tradeline has been the subject of prior disputes and legal inquiries, with certified dispute letters sent in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a supplemental dispute to Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax identifying the XXXX XXXX as unverifiable, incomplete, and misleading, and specifically requested : - Full payment history - Signed agreements - Itemized statements - Proof of debt ownership or immediate deletion if documentation could not be produced.\n\nThis dispute cited FCRA 607 ( b ) and 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and demanded compliance. To date, no documentation has been provided by either XXXX or the credit reporting agencies. The tradeline remains legally unverifiable and must be deleted. \nXXXX failed to respond to the dispute and did not furnish any signed contracts, transactional records, or itemized billing history, undermining any claim of verification. \nExperian marked the tradeline as Verified and Updated, but failed to produce any new data or explanation. This suggests the investigation was superficial or automated a likely violation of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ). \nExperian altered the past due as of date from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX without any legitimate basis or new account activity a post hoc manipulation that falsely extends the accounts derogatory status and misrepresents account activity in violation of FCRA 1681e ( b ) and 607 ( b ) TransUnion returned a similarly vague outcome, labeling the account as 'verified ' without providing any documentation from XXXX or describing the method of verification. \nTransUnion and XXXX report a XXXX XXXX of {$5000.00}, while simultaneously reporting a charge-off and current balance of {$5000.00} exceeding the {$4000.00} credit limit. No documentation has been provided to justify the {$4.00} discrepancy, nor explain how or when this high balance occurred. The inconsistency raises concerns of unverified interest, fees, or internal reporting inflation, and violates the requirement for maximum possible accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ). This High Balance was not disclosed in earlier reports, and its appearance only after my dispute suggests a possible post hoc or reconstructed update, not a verified fact. Without itemized statements or creditor explanation, this change is unverifiable and must be treated as such under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). \nBalance and Timeline Inconsistencies o The Transunion dispute result report labels the account as having an Original Charge-off of {$5000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX, yet separately lists a High Balance of {$5000.00} a value that exceeds the charge-off amount. Since charge-off represents the final balance deemed uncollectible, a higher balance appearing after the account was charged off is both procedurally and logically inconsistent. \no Furthermore, the term Original Charge-off misleadingly implies that there were multiple charge-off events, but no additional charge-off dates or updates are listed. There is also no date provided for when the High Balance occurred, nor was any supporting documentation offered.\n\no These inconsistencies violate the Fair Credit Reporting Acts standard for maximum possible accuracy ( FCRA 607 ( b ) ) and materially misrepresent the nature of the debt. The CRAs updated this account without verifying its accuracy or ensuring consistency between fields. \nThe charge-off balance ( {$5000.00} ) exceeds the original credit limit ( {$4000.00} ), raising major concerns about unverifiable over-limit fees or interest which must be validated but were not. \nNo payments or updates have occurred since XX/XX/XXXX, yet the account is still listed as updated as of XX/XX/XXXX likely using stale or recycled data. This violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). \nThe reported account balance exceeds the credit limit, suggesting unverified fees or interest accruals, which were neither explained nor validated during the reinvestigation. \nScheduled payment and actual payment history remain at {$0.00} for over XXXX  months, yet the account is still reported as a valid, active charge-off contradicting the requirement to report accurate and current data. \nNone of the CRAs provided notice of the changes made to the tradeline, violating FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), which mandates that consumers be informed of results and the method used during reinvestigation. \nUnverified Account Elements : XXXX failed to produce any of the following when requested through dispute or reinvestigation : Itemized balance history or account statements Signed applications or cardholder agreements Records of authorized or signed transactions Evidence of mailed or delivered late payment/charge-off notices Proof of consent to fees, interest, or terms of credit Full payment posting history Evidence of ownership or authorization to report the debt The absence of this documentation from both the furnisher and the CRAs shows that the account was not properly verified and remains unsubstantiated under FCRA standards. These failures also likely violate : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which prohibits inclusion of information that can not be verified as accurate and complete XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business Failure of the Verification Process Only XXXX Possibilities, Both Unlawful : 1. Reliance on e-OSCAR System Checkbox Responses : If the CRAs relied solely on automated responses from the furnisher via the e-OSCAR platform without reviewing actual documentation they failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation in violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) and 607 ( b ). Such blind reliance is negligent and fails to meet the standard of maximum possible accuracy.\n\n2. Review of Incomplete or Unsent Documentation : If the CRAs received documentation from XXXX  XXXX and either : o Chose not to review it ; or o Reviewed it but ignored the lack of responsive data ; Then they engaged in willful violations of FCRA 1681i, 1681g, and possibly 616617 concerning civil liability.\n\nViolation of the 30-Day Deadline ( Equifax and XXXX Bank ) : As of this filing, Equifax has failed to provide the results of its reinvestigation, despite receiving my dispute by certified mail on XX/XX/XXXX. This exceeds the XXXX limit established under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) and 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ). The disputed XXXX tradeline continues to appear on my report ( as confirmed via XXXX XXXX ), despite no timely reinvestigation result being issued. An immediate deletion of the account is a must. \nFurthermore, XXXX XXXX failed to respond to my direct dispute within this 30-day period, and did not supply any of the required verification documents ( e.g., signed agreements, billing records, proof of ownership ). The continued presence of this tradeline after the expiration of the statutory reinvestigation period without verified supporting evidence constitutes a violation of the FCRA and triggers the CRAs duty to delete the account under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). An immediate deletion of the account is a must.\n\nFailure to Provide Required Disclosures : All three CRAs failed to com\nply with FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) and 1681g, which require : The method of verification Documentation or evidence reviewed Name and contact information of the verifying party Key Violations Include : 1. FCRA 1681i Failure to Conduct Reasonable Reinvestigation 2. FCRA 1681e ( b ) / 607 ( b ) Failure to Ensure Maximum Possible Accuracy 3. FCRA 1681g / 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to Provide Verification Method and Documentation 4. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) Failure to Notify of Dispute Outcome Properly 5. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) Obligation to Delete Tradeline When Information Can not Be Verified Any continued attestation that this account is verified or updated without producing responsive documentation may constitute false certification, constructive fraud, or deceptive practices in violation of federal and state laws. \nLEGAL NOTICE AND FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION I am documenting this matter in good faith and notifying all parties that, unless this unverifiable tradeline is permanently deleted from my credit file within XXXX calendar days, I will proceed with formal legal escalation. This includes : Filing small claims lawsuits against each CRA in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Filing complaints with the XXXX XXXX State Attorney General and XXXX XXXX XXXX Submitting additional FCRA claims to federal regulators This is not a demand for financial compensation, but a legal demand for the immediate and permanent deletion of the unverified tradeline. If deletion occurs in good faith within the timeframe stated, I will consider the matter resolved and will not pursue further action.\n\nDocumentation Request Under FCRA Pursuant to FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) and 1681g, this communication also serves as my formal request for all records, data, and descriptions of the procedures used to verify the accuracy and completeness of the XXXX XXXX  account referenced in this complaint. \nPlease provide : The method of verification, All documentation or evidence reviewed, and The name and contact information of the party who verified the account. \nThis information must be provided within XXXX calendar days of this notice, in accordance with federal law. \nPlease refer to the attached Exhibit Index for a complete list of supporting documentation Respectfully Submitted, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-05T00:09:43.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14460708","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-04T23:58:51.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Clarification : This <em>complaint</em> is separate and distinct from any previously filed <em>complaints</em> against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically their refusal to provide verification documentation related to the XXXX <em>dispute</em>, as required under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis. This is not a re-<em>dispute</em>."]},"sort":[6.8964067,"14460708"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3845927","_score":6.544603,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I booked a stay using XXXX service on XX/XX/2020 for 5 days ( XX/XX/2020 ). I was in talks with the property management company from day 1 with questions and clarifications. Once we arrived to the location, we were appalled. The photos were edited/enhanced to make then look better, there were several inaccuracies in the listing itself that we identified once we got there, the listing claimed a sofa sleeper when it was really a small size futon. The refrigerator did not work and we lost around {$500.00} worth of food that we purchased from XXXX. The house was extremely warm with thermostat reading 83 degrees, so we opened the windows to try and cool down the house since it was in the low 60 's outside. However, when we opened the windows during a movie on our first night we got a noise complaint. The property management company started to text me with unsolicited messages telling us to be quiet and threatening us with being kicked out or heavy fined, while also apologizing for their \" consistently sensitive neighbor ''. This was a major surprise, as the listing stated the neighbors were far away. I spoke with the property management the next morning and expressed my frustrations and I was told they would work anything out afterwards. I was told to just keep a list of thing and bring them to their attention after the stay and promised since they are the largest company that they would guarantee my satisfaction. After our stay, I sent the issues as requested and I got a generic response back along with asking what I wanted. I stated I wanted reimbursement and then they never responded to me again. They also left me a poor/negative review. I called XXXX and they stated with my poor review nothing would be done and they stand by their client, but insisted I leave a review and then call back. So, I left a review and I ensured to make it as objective as possible. A few days later, XXXX emails me and states the review is denied because I \" blackmailed the property management company ''. When in reality all I did was tell the property management company after I listed all the negatives with the stay that I would prefer not to leave a review and would prefer reimbursement. After exhausting all those options, I went to my bank and the first agent I explained a version similar to above and was told this would 100 % be able to be disputed for dissatisfaction of services rendered. I then spoke with Chase Bank 's fraud department. I told told no and that since I stayed there it was not an option. After going back and forth the gentleman hung up on me, so I waited for a few minutes and there was no call back. I called a 2nd time and spoke to XXXX in the fraud department. The same back and forth, but this time there was a clear negative attitude from the representative. I was frustrated, but not upset until talking to XXXX and I told him he was condescending and just being a jerk. Then I spoke with XXXX, who is a supervisor for the Chase Fraud department. Again, the same back and forth but she was much nicer and understanding. I asked her a hypothetical question based on what they were telling me as their reason for not assisting which was \" you stayed at the XXXX and received 100 % of the service therefore you cant seek reimbursement ''. I explained that the \" service '' goes way beyond the staying at the residence. I explained that their service afterwards is where most of my concerns are, the fraudulent listing, the lies about \" taking care of me '', and the systemic issues displayed by blocking my account and ability to leave a review to which Chase representatives stated disagreement with interpretation. The questions I asked was basically - Hypothetically, If I called into Chase the day I arrived and stated I was unhappy for \" x, y, and z reasons and wanted to leave. However, because of COVID and the fact that we had 10 people fly in for this stay we could not find a place that would take so many people on a last minute notice, what would Chase Bank suggest we do? XXXX responded by saying the same stuff, if you stay there you have to pay. My final comment made was that what I am inferring from that response is that even in the face of zero options the only way Chase Bank would offer consumer protection is if we opted to be homeless for the night and sleep on the street. I explained that I was very disappointed to know that Chase Bank doesn't have my back as a consumer. I was forwarded to a 3rd party benefits team and again there was no resolution other than being told too bad. I understand rules/regulations and things of that nature. Where I really get scared is the systemic practices by XXXX and the property management company. They know the system and it is evident in retrospect when I was told \" just wait until after the stay to submit your concerns '' and then poor review of me leading to XXXX response and siding with their client as a result, and blocking my ability to leave a review. When the banks are not willing to protect their consumers then these companies have absolutely ZERO accountability. When they understand the banks will deny ANY claim no matter the reason as long as the person stays, then they will say ANYTHING to give the consumer peace of mind. That is what happened here. I wanted to leave, we couldn't leave anyway because of COVID, we complained and were given peace of mind for 'AFTER ', and then XXXX took away our voice. \n\nDETAILS : XX/XX/XXXX charge by XXXX XXXX {$2000.00} XX/XX/XXXX (? ) charge by XXXX {$400.00} XX/XX/XXXX charge by XXXX XXXX {$2000.00} XX/XX/XXXX charge by XXXX XXXX {$50.00} XX/XX/XXXX charge by XXXX XXXX {$39.00} TOTAL= {$4600.00} Contacted property management ( XXXX XXXX ) multiple times, last correspondence on XX/XX/2020. Their last response was XX/XX/2020. \n\nGuest review from XXXX XXXX about me XX/XX/2020. \nContacted XXXX about concerns approximately XX/XX/2020 XXXX XXXX review from me approximately XX/XX/2020. \nXXXX opened case ( have # if needed ) and closed it XX/XX/2020 denying my review, I responded back to XXXX, XXXX has ceased communication. \n\nTried to dispute transaction online through Chase XX/XX/2020 Called Chase Bank XX/XX/2020 - conversations/outcomes listed in long narrative. \nConsumer Finance complaint on XX/XX/2020 for poor customer service, unwillingness to step in and take action, even if regulations prevent Chase from filing for reimbursement I feel that given the context of my scenario I was clearly taken advantage of and I feel like a victim of fraud after being stupid for believing XXXX XXXX and XXXX lies. I feel Chase should stand behind their customer even if the regulations do not allow them to seek resolutions in that form. I still expect the bank to hold fraudulent and deceiving people accountable.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-09-14T21:17:39.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92127","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3845927","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2020-09-14T19:31:26.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Add-on products and services"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Tried to <em>dispute</em> transaction online through Chase XX/XX/2020 Called Chase Bank XX/XX/2020 - conversations/outcomes listed in long <em>narrative</em>. \nConsumer Finance <em>complaint</em> on XX/XX/2020 for poor customer service, unwillingness to step in and take action, even if regulations prevent Chase from filing for reimbursement I feel that given the context of my scenario I was clearly taken advantage of and I feel like a victim of fraud after being stupid for believing XXXX XXXX and XXXX lies."]},"sort":[6.544603,"3845927"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17214024","_score":6.2116704,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns a long-standing and unresolved issue involving the reporting of an account furnished by Navy Federal Credit Union ( Navy FCU ) that continues to appear on my consumer credit files as a charge-off or collection account despite being reported as paid. I have made repeated and lawful efforts under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) to obtain full validation and procedural verification of this account. To date, neither the credit bureaus nor Navy FCU have produced documentation demonstrating that the information being furnished is accurate, current, or lawfully verifiable.\n\nThe purpose of this complaint is to document what occurred, outline the actions I have taken to resolve the matter, describe how the company and the credit reporting agencies have responded, and request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) ensure compliance with federal consumer-protection statutes.\n\n1. Background and Discovery of the Issue When reviewing my credit reports in XXXX and again in XXXX, I discovered that Navy FCU was furnishing an account listed as a charge-off or collection with a XXXX balance. The account was shown as paid but still categorized under derogatory status. This classification misleads lenders and affects my creditworthiness because it implies ongoing delinquency or loss to the creditor even though no debt remains outstanding. \n\nThe first instance of discovery occurred in XXXX, when I noticed inconsistent reporting among the three credit bureaus. One bureau showed the account as a collection/charge-off paid, another as closed derogatory, and the third as paid/closed. The reporting dates also varied by several months, suggesting that the information may have been transmitted through automated systems rather than verified manually. \n\nBecause the FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to maintain procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy, I immediately began the formal dispute process to determine how Navy FCUs information had been verified. \n\nXXXX. Steps I Took to Resolve the Issue Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted multiple written disputes to each of the major credit bureausXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Each dispute requested a full procedural investigation and validation of the Navy FCU account pursuant to FCRA 609 ( a ) and 611 ( a ). Specifically, I asked for : A description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information. \n\nThe name, address, and telephone number of the furnisher ( Navy FCU ) that provided or verified the data. \n\nCopies of all documents Navy FCU supplied during the reinvestigation process. \n\nThe method used to verify the informationmanual review, electronic verification via XXXX, or third-party submission. \n\nThe date of the last verification and the data source consulted. \n\nI also sent a direct validation request to Navy FCU under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) and FDCPA 809 ( b ), asking the institution to provide documentary evidence showing : The original signed credit agreement or contract.\n\nComplete payment history demonstrating the alleged delinquency or charge-off event. \n\nWritten authorization or policy permitting continued reporting of a paid charge-off. \n\nEvidence that the information transmitted to the credit bureaus was verified by a responsible employee rather than through automated batch processing.\n\nEach letter was sent via certified mail with proof of delivery to preserve an audit trail.\n\n3. Responses from Credit Bureaus and Navy FCU The credit bureaus each replied with standard form letters stating that the information had been verified as accurate. None provided any description of the verification procedure as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). When I requested the specific documentation used to confirm the Navy FCU account, I received no documentsonly generic statements claiming that the furnisher confirmed the data.\n\nNavy FCU did not provide copies of a signed agreement, charge-off notice, or payment ledger. Instead, the institution issued a brief correspondence stating that the account was reported accurately. The response did not include the original contract or payment history demonstrating the legitimacy of the charge-off notation. \n\nAt no point was I given access to the documentation that would confirm how the account was validated or what evidence supported the continued derogatory reporting. \n\n4. Why This Reporting Is Inaccurate and Misleading The disputed Navy FCU account presents multiple compliance problems under federal law : Contradictory Reporting : The account is marked paid yet still coded as a charge-off or collection. A paid account can not simultaneously represent an unpaid loss. This dual coding misleads creditors and violates FCRA 607 ( b ), which requires maximum possible accuracy. \n\nLack of Current Balance Verification : Since the account shows a XXXX balance, continued derogatory classification implies an ongoing default without factual basis. \n\nFailure to Verify Documentation : No original account documents or payment records have been produced. Without such verification, the information is legally unverifiable under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) and must be deleted.\n\nImproper Furnishing After Settlement or Charge-Off : If Navy FCU no longer owns the account or has closed it as paid, continued reporting as a charge-off violates FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they knowor should knowto be inaccurate. \n\nProcedural Negligence by Credit Bureaus : The bureaus reliance on automated electronic responses through the XXXX system constitutes a failure to perform a reasonable reinvestigation, as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), where the court ruled that a bureau can not rely blindly on a furnishers response. \n\nViolation of FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) : If any collection notation remains, it falsely represents the legal status of the debt.\n\nIn essence, the current reporting conveys a misleading narrative to creditors : that I once defaulted and that the account remains derogatory, when in fact it has been resolved and carries no outstanding balance.\n\n5. How This Situation Has Affected Me The inaccurate reporting by Navy FCU and the failure of the bureaus to correct it have caused ongoing harm, including : Lower credit scores across all three bureaus.\n\nDenial or less favorable terms on credit applications.\n\nDifficulty obtaining housing and insurance at fair rates.\n\nReputational harm through dissemination of misleading financial data.\n\nEmotional distress from repeated disputes yielding no transparency.\n\nEach month the erroneous derogatory entry remains, it is re-published to lenders and third parties, compounding the damage.\n\n6. Lack of Compliance with FCRA Timelines and Obligations Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a credit bureau must complete a reinvestigation within 30 days. All three bureaus closed their investigations within approximately 10 days of receiving my disputean interval too short for meaningful document reviewsuggesting that only an automated verification occurred.\n\nMoreover, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) requires that, upon completion of a reinvestigation, the bureau provide a description of the procedure used to determine accuracy. None of the bureaus complied with this obligation.\n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( b ), a furnisher like Navy FCU must conduct its own investigation upon receiving notice of a dispute from a bureau, review relevant information, and report back accurately. The absence of supporting documents implies that no substantive investigation occurred. \n\nXXXX. The Evidence Gap and Procedural Deficiencies The heart of this issue is the complete absence of an evidence trail. Neither Navy FCU nor the credit bureaus have provided : A copy of the original credit application or loan agreement.\n\nAccount statements or transaction history verifying the alleged default.\n\nDocumentation of the charge-off decision or date.\n\nA record showing that the account remains within the statute of limitations for reporting.\n\nAny correspondence demonstrating consumer notification of the charge-off.\n\nWithout this information, no party can claim that the data is accurate or verifiable. Continuing to publish the information without proof constitutes reckless disregard for truth and violates FCRA 616 and 617, which impose civil liability for willful or negligent noncompliance.\n\n8. Applicable Statutes and Legal Precedents Several provisions of federal law govern this dispute : FCRA 602 ( a ) : Establishes Congresss intent to ensure fairness, accuracy, and privacy in credit reporting.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) : Mandates reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) : Requires reinvestigation and correction or deletion of inaccurate data.\n\nFCRA 623 ( a ) : Imposes a duty on furnishers to provide accurate information.\n\nFCRA 623 ( b ) : Requires furnishers to investigate upon receiving disputes.\n\nFDCPA 809 ( b ) : Requires debt collectors to validate debts before continuing collection or reporting. \n\nIn addition, court decisions such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank affirm that cursory or automated verification procedures fail to satisfy the FCRAs standard of reasonable investigation. \n\nXXXX. Pattern of Systemic Deficiency This dispute highlights a broader systemic problem affecting consumers : the over-reliance on automated dispute resolution systems by both furnishers and credit bureaus. When a consumer submits a dispute, the credit bureau typically assigns a two-digit code through e-OSCAR, which is sent electronically to the furnisher. The furnisher often responds with a one-word status such as verified without attaching documentation. The bureau then updates the consumers file as verified.\n\nIn this case, Navy FCU appears to have confirmed the account electronically without providing evidence, and the bureaus accepted that response without scrutiny. This process fails the reasonableness test required under federal law and effectively denies consumers a genuine reinvestigation.\n\n10. Continued Harm and Attempts to Resolve After receiving unsatisfactory responses, I again disputed the account in early 2025, enclosing copies of prior correspondence and highlighting the contradictory reporting. The results were identical : each bureau marked the item as verified.\n\nI also attempted to reach Navy FCUs credit reporting department directly by phone and through written correspondence. My requests for documentation went unanswered or were redirected to the bureaus. As of this filing, no party has provided validation or evidence.\n\nBecause all internal remedies have been exhausted, I am submitting this complaint to the CFPB to request oversight and enforcement.\n\n11. Why the Current Situation Violates Federal Standards The current handling of this dispute violates multiple federal standards : Failure to provide procedural details as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).\n\nFailure to delete unverifiable data as required by FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ).\n\nFailure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy under FCRA 607 ( b ).\n\nFailure of the furnisher to conduct a meaningful investigation under FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ).\n\nFailure to provide validation prior to continued reporting under FDCPA 809 ( b ).\n\nThese combined failures represent systemic non-compliance rather than an isolated clerical error.\n\n12. Requested CFPB Involvement I am asking the CFPB to ensure that Navy FCU and the credit bureaus : Conduct a full reinvestigation with documentation.\n\nProvide the consumer with copies of all verification records.\n\nRemove or correct any unverifiable or inaccurate data.\n\nReview internal dispute procedures for compliance with federal law.\n\nImplement policy changes preventing similar failures in the future.\n\nThis oversight is necessary because individual consumers lack access to the internal records and technical systems that would reveal how the disputed information was verified.\n\n13. Broader Impact and Policy Considerations The Navy FCU case illustrates a larger issue within the credit-reporting ecosystem : consumers bear the burden of proof while furnishers and bureaus rely on automated confirmation loops that lack transparency. The CFPB has documented this problem in multiple bulletins, emphasizing that furnishers must provide substantive documentation when responding to disputes.\n\nEnsuring that this case receives a thorough, documented reinvestigation will help reinforce best practices across the industry and protect other consumers from similar procedural negligence.\n\n14. Expected Corrective Actions Based on the facts and the law, the following corrective actions would constitute a fair resolution : Immediate deletion of the Navy FCU charge-off or collection entry if documentation can not be produced.\n\nWritten certification from Navy FCU affirming that any remaining information is complete and accurate.\n\nDelivery of the procedural description and evidence used during reinvestigation.\n\nUpdated credit reports reflecting correction or deletion within 30 days.\n\nNotification to all recent credit report recipients under FCRA 611 ( d ) that corrections have been made.\n\n15. Ongoing Monitoring and Prevention To prevent recurrence, Navy FCU and the credit bureaus should : Train staff to distinguish between paid accounts and true charge-offs.\n\nRequire original documentation for verification rather than accepting automated confirmations.\n\nAudit furnishers with high dispute rates.\n\nProvide consumers with online access to reinvestigation logs and supporting files.\n\nThese actions would bring the institutions into full compliance with federal law and rebuild consumer trust.\n\n16. Summary In summary, this complaint arises because Navy FCU continues to furnish an account that is reported inconsistently and inaccurately across multiple credit bureaus, with contradictory coding that simultaneously labels it paid and derogatory. Despite numerous disputes and validation requests, neither the bureaus nor Navy FCU have produced evidence proving that the data is accurate or verifiable. \n\nThe FCRA and FDCPA require transparency, documentation, and fairness in credit reporting. Those standards have not been met. The ongoing dissemination of unverifiable information constitutes a violation of federal law and has caused tangible harm. \n\n17. Conclusion I am requesting CFPB assistance to ensure that Navy FCU and the credit bureaus fulfill their legal duties to investigate thoroughly, validate with documentation, and correct or delete any information that can not be verified. I also ask that the CFPB monitor their compliance to prevent future recurrence.\n\nConsumers have a right to accurate, complete, and verifiable information in their credit files. That right has been denied in this case. A fair resolution requires a transparent reinvestigation, production of supporting records, and correction or deletion of the disputed entry.\n\nI appreciate the Bureaus attention to this matter and its continued efforts to enforce consumer-protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T01:42:20.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17214024","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-11-14T01:36:31.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Because the FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to maintain procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy, I immediately began the formal <em>dispute</em> process to determine how Navy FCUs information had been verified. \n\nXXXX. Steps I Took to Resolve the Issue Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted multiple written <em>disputes</em> to each of the <em>major</em> credit bureausXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[6.2116704,"17214024"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6644096","_score":6.1241236,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"First and foremost, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), and its client LVNV Funding LLC ( Plaintiff ), are pursuing the wrong party ; I am not the person that owes the debt and have unimpeachable proof. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from XXXX XXXX with included information about the subject debt, followed by a 100 % false statement : Despite our previous request for payment in the above-referenced matter, there remains a balance due, and you have not established an acceptable payment plan with us. \n\nThe implication was that Plaintiff or XXXX XXXX had previously requested payment for the debt from me, which is false. Aside from the fact that the debt is not mine, the fact I was never contacted previously about this debt negates the possibility that I would have established a payment plan especially because its not my debt. Because I had never previously had any contact with XXXX XXXX or Plaintiff, the entire letter was a total fabrication. To this day, I have no idea why Plaintiff picked me out of the hundreds of similar names in existence ; its not an unusual name. \n\nI suspected this was a scam. Using the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) as a guide, I responded in a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, via Certified Mail, requesting five documents of proof knowing that Plaintiff could not ( without fraudulent activities ) prove I am the debtor because, as I said, I am not the debtor. \n\nThose five items were : 1. The name and address of the original creditor, the account number, and the amount owed.\n\n2. Verification that there is a valid basis for claiming I am required to pay the current amount owed.\n\n3. Details about the age and amount of the debt including a copy of the last billing statement from the original creditor ; a detailed explanation of any interest added, or payments made since the last billing statement and the legal authorization for this interest ; the date the original creditor claims this debt became delinquent.\n\n4. Proof that collection of this debt is within the statute of limitations and how that was determined.\n\n5. Details about XXXX XXXX authority to collect this debt : whether they are licensed in my state and if so, provide the date of the license, name on the license and the license number, and the name, address and telephone number of the state agency issuing the license. If XXXX XXXX is contacting me from outside my state, provide the licensing information from XXXX XXXX state as well. \n\nAnd of those five, the only document and the only other contact with XXXX XXXX or Plaintiff prior to being served a summons was the name and address of the original creditor, the account number, and the amount owed, and proved to be highly exculpatory, demonstrating Plaintiff and XXXX XXXX were not pursuing the correct person. It came neither from the XXXX XXXX nor the Plaintiff, but from Resurgent Capital Services ( Servicer ), an apparent servicing company working for the Plaintiff. That letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX, included a document created entirely by Servicer naming me the debtor on one page ; the other document provided was a copy of a XXXX XXXX Bank charge card ( Bank Card ) statement for the period ending XX/XX/XXXX, Account Number XXXX XXXX XXXX in the name XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IL XXXX. That is not how I spell my name and that address is 120 miles from where I live. \n\nI received none of the other documents requested in my XX/XX/XXXX letter prior to being served the summons. Much has still not been provided. Servicer has sent me the same document ( s ) three times. Importantly, I never received any verification that there is a valid basis for claiming that I, XXXX XXXX of XXXX, Illinois, is required to pay this debt. In the entire history of this case, I had received three contacts from the XXXX XXXX : the original XX/XX/XXXX letter, the summons which was personally served to me XX/XX/XXXX, and an email response stating they do nothing by email after I had emailed them for more information. No phone calls, no emails, no verification, nothing, ever. I never received anything at all from Bank Card because we never had a Bank Card account. They would have had zero reason to contact me. \n\nAs I understand the requirements of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff was required to provide me all of the documents requested in my XX/XX/XXXX letter prior to taking court action. Because nothing besides the exculpatory document was provided prior to filing suit, it seems Plaintiff and XXXX XXXX are therefore in violation of that act. \n\nAside from violation of the FDCPA, the most pertinent issue is, as I have previously stated, I am not, nor is my wife, the person that owes this debt. Neither my wife nor I have lived in XXXX XXXX, nor have we been employed in that area. In fact, after finding it on an Illinois map, we do not think we have ever set foot in or even driven through XXXX XXXX. We have lived and owned homes in XXXX, IL for the past 48 years our entire adult lives- with no break in residency. XX/XX/XXXX marked my familys fortieth anniversary living in our current house at XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, Illinois. I have proof. ( Copies of the original real estate transaction, real estate tax payments, utility bills, drivers licenses, passports, credit card bills and other documents ). \n\nAnd once again, I have never received any verification that I am somehow liable for the debtor with the similar name as mine from XXXX XXXX, Illinois. \n\nWith a credit score of over 800, I have reports from the three major credit bureaus as proof of my honesty, integrity, reliability, and creditworthiness. Most importantly there is a total absence of a Bank Card account listing or any mention of a past due Bank Card account on those credit bureau reports because we never had a Bank Card account. \nI dont spell my name the same way as in this charge. I have never used the spelling of the debtor who owes this debt. Therefore, I do not have an AKA as XXXX as the plaintiff claims. \n\nAt this time, I must note that in the complaint, the attached exhibit of the Bank Card statement in which the original name and address of the correct debtor should be listed, that information has mysteriously been deleted or covered upon copying. The complaint was signed by a XXXX XXXX attorney under penalty of perjury and stated that the attached bank statement displayed my name and address, a falsehood. Any reasonable person would interpret this falsehood as improper at the very least ; some might say its even fraudulent. The reason it was covered up obviously is because the name and address on the original un-doctored document is exculpatory and doesnt fit the plaintiffs narrative. \n\nNote that I originally asked XXXX XXXX for verification XX/XX/XXXX, twice more in XXXX and nothing was ever provided in the one year since the original request. Absent verification that I am the one liable for this debt, there seemed to be no reason the case should continue but it took three hearings and nearly five months before the plaintiff motioned for dismissal of the case in XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFurthermore, in the complaint the Plaintiff attaches undue importance to the fact I did not respond to my receipt of the exculpatory Bank Card statement provided by Resurgent. There were four very important reasons why I had not yet responded : 1 ) the proof they provided was simply the name and address of the original debtor, 2 ) there was no verification that I owed the debt on behalf of the original debtor, 3 ) I had already previously denied I personally owed the debt ( how many times do I need to state that fact? ), and 4 ) I was waiting on the remainder of the requested documents to see if they looked as illegitimate as the statement with someone elses name and address on it. \nThe FDCPA addresses this issue specifically. Neither the XX/XX/XXXX letter from XXXX XXXX nor the XX/XX/XXXX mailing from Servicer had the required FDCPA language, a statement that unless the consumer, within 30 days, after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector. Furthermore, the FDCPA also states, The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. \n\nAs previously stated, nothing else was provided prior to the filing of the complaint and there are still documents that have not been provided. \n\nFinally, using consumer background tools on the internet I was easily able to find that the original name and address of the debtor still exists. \n\nI suspect, however, that the plaintiff knows full well that I am not the correct person that owes this debt and was simply hoping I wasnt paying attention because they are having trouble finding and or collecting from the real debtor from XXXX XXXX. \nPlaintiff and XXXX XXXX represent their seedy industry well. Incompetence, deviousness or maliciousness cost me money and significant time. I ask for {$1200.00} for compensation. \n\nI also request that XXXX XXXX make a motion to the XXXX XXXX Circuit Court, XXXX, IL to amend its dismissal of this case from without prejudice to with prejudice.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-03T17:17:34.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"617XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6644096","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2023-03-03T17:17:30.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore, the FDCPA also states, The failure of a consumer to <em>dispute</em> the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. \n\nAs previously stated, nothing else was provided prior to the filing of the <em>complaint</em> and there are still documents that have not been provided. \n\nFinally, using consumer background tools on the internet I was easily able to find that the original name and address of the debtor still exists."]},"sort":[6.1241236,"6644096"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6644110","_score":6.1199636,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"First and foremost, Kohn Law Firm S.C. ( Law Firm ), and its client XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ), are pursuing the wrong party ; I am not the person that owes the debt and have unimpeachable proof. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Law Firm with included information about the subject debt, followed by a 100 % false statement : Despite our previous request for payment in the above-referenced matter, there remains a balance due, and you have not established an acceptable payment plan with us. \n\nThe implication was that Plaintiff or Law Firm had previously requested payment for the debt from me, which is false. Aside from the fact that the debt is not mine, the fact I was never contacted previously about this debt negates the possibility that I would have established a payment plan especially because its not my debt. Because I had never previously had any contact with Law Firm or Plaintiff, the entire letter was a total fabrication. To this day, I have no idea why Plaintiff picked me out of the hundreds of similar names in existence ; its not an unusual name. \n\nI suspected this was a scam. Using the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) as a guide, I responded in a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, via Certified Mail, requesting five documents of proof knowing that Plaintiff could not ( without fraudulent activities ) prove I am the debtor because, as I said, I am not the debtor. \n\nThose five items were : 1. The name and address of the original creditor, the account number, and the amount owed. \n\n2. Verification that there is a valid basis for claiming I am required to pay the current amount owed. \n\n3. Details about the age and amount of the debt including a copy of the last billing statement from the original creditor ; a detailed explanation of any interest added, or payments made since the last billing statement and the legal authorization for this interest ; the date the original creditor claims this debt became delinquent. \n\n4. Proof that collection of this debt is within the statute of limitations and how that was determined. \n\n5. Details about Law Firms authority to collect this debt : whether they are licensed in my state and if so, provide the date of the license, name on the license and the license number, and the name, address and telephone number of the state agency issuing the license. If Law Firm is contacting me from outside my state, provide the licensing information from Law Firm state as well. \n\nAnd of those five, the only document and the only other contact with Law Firm or Plaintiff prior to being served a summons was the name and address of the original creditor, the account number, and the amount owed, and proved to be highly exculpatory, demonstrating Plaintiff and Law Firm were not pursuing the correct person. It came neither from the Law Firm nor the Plaintiff, but from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Servicer ), an apparent servicing company working for the Plaintiff. That letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX, included a document created entirely by Servicer naming me the debtor on one page ; the other document provided was a copy of a XXXX XXXX XXXX charge card ( Bank Card ) statement for the period ending XX/XX/XXXX, Account Number XXXX XXXX XXXX in the name of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IL XXXX. That is not how I spell my name and that address is 120 miles from where I live. \n\nI received none of the other documents requested in my XX/XX/XXXX letter prior to being served the summons. Much has still not been provided. Servicer has sent me the same document ( s ) three times. Importantly, I never received any verification that there is a valid basis for claiming that I, XXXX XXXX of XXXX, Illinois, is required to pay this debt. In the entire history of this case, I had received three contacts from the Law Firm : the original XX/XX/XXXX letter, the summons which was personally served to me XX/XX/XXXX, and an email response stating they do nothing by email after I had emailed them for more information. No phone calls, no emails, no verification, nothing, ever. I never received anything at all from Bank Card because we never had a Bank Card account. They would have had zero reason to contact me. \n\nAs I understand the requirements of the FDCPA, the Plaintiff was required to provide me all of the documents requested in my XX/XX/XXXX letter prior to taking court action. Because nothing besides the exculpatory document was provided prior to filing suit, it seems Plaintiff and Law Firm are therefore in violation of that act. \n\nAside from violation of the FDCPA, the most pertinent issue is, as I have previously stated, I am not, nor is my wife, the person that owes this debt. Neither my wife nor I have lived in XXXX XXXX, nor have we been employed in that area. In fact, after finding it on an Illinois map, we do not think we have ever set foot in or even driven through XXXX XXXX. We have lived and owned homes in XXXX, IL for the past 48 years our entire adult lives- with no break in residency. XX/XX/XXXX marked my familys fortieth anniversary living in our current house at XXXX XXXX Ct, XXXX, Illinois. I have proof. ( Copies of the original real estate transaction, real estate tax payments, utility bills, drivers licenses, passports, credit card bills and other documents ). \n\nAnd once again, I have never received any verification that I am somehow liable for the debtor with the similar name as mine from XXXX XXXX, Illinois. \n\nWith a credit score of over 800, I have reports from the three major credit bureaus as proof of my honesty, integrity, reliability, and creditworthiness. Most importantly there is a total absence of a Bank Card account listing or any mention of a past due Bank Card account on those credit bureau reports because we never had a Bank Card account. \nI dont spell my name the same way as in this charge. I have never used the spelling of the debtor who owes this debt. Therefore, I do not have an AKA as XXXX as the plaintiff claims. \n\nAt this time, I must note that in the complaint, the attached exhibit of the Bank Card statement in which the original name and address of the correct debtor should be listed, that information has mysteriously been deleted or covered upon copying. The complaint was signed by a Law Firm attorney under penalty of perjury and stated that the attached bank statement displayed my name and address, a falsehood. Any reasonable person would interpret this falsehood as improper at the very least ; some might say its even fraudulent. The reason it was covered up obviously is because the name and address on the original un-doctored document is exculpatory and doesnt fit the plaintiffs narrative. \n\nNote that I originally asked Law Firm for verification XX/XX/XXXX, twice more in XXXX and nothing was ever provided in the one year since the original request. Absent verification that I am the one liable for this debt, there seemed to be no reason the case should continue but it took three hearings and nearly five months before the plaintiff motioned for dismissal of the case in XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFurthermore, in the complaint the Plaintiff attaches undue importance to the fact I did not respond to my receipt of the exculpatory Bank Card statement provided by XXXX. There were four very important reasons why I had not yet responded : 1 ) the proof they provided was simply the name and address of the original debtor, 2 ) there was no verification that I owed the debt on behalf of the original debtor, 3 ) I had already previously denied I personally owed the debt ( how many times do I need to state that fact? ), and 4 ) I was waiting on the remainder of the requested documents to see if they looked as illegitimate as the statement with someone elses name and address on it. \nThe FDCPA addresses this issue specifically. Neither the XX/XX/XXXX letter from Law Firm nor the XX/XX/XXXX mailing from Servicer had the required FDCPA language, a statement that unless the consumer, within 30 days, after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector. Furthermore, the FDCPA also states, The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. \n\nAs previously stated, nothing else was provided prior to the filing of the complaint and there are still documents that have not been provided. \n\nFinally, using consumer background tools on the internet I was easily able to find that the original name and address of the debtor still exists. \n\nI suspect, however, that the plaintiff knows full well that I am not the correct person that owes this debt and was simply hoping I wasnt paying attention because they are having trouble finding and or collecting from the real debtor from XXXX XXXX. \nPlaintiff and Law Firm represent their seedy industry well. Incompetence, deviousness or maliciousness cost me money and significant time. I ask for {$1200.00} for compensation. \n\nI also request that Law Firm make a motion to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IL to amend its dismissal of this case from without prejudice to with prejudice.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-03T17:17:24.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"617XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6644110","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Kohn Law Firm S.C.","date_received":"2023-03-03T16:17:09.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore, the FDCPA also states, The failure of a consumer to <em>dispute</em> the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. \n\nAs previously stated, nothing else was provided prior to the filing of the <em>complaint</em> and there are still documents that have not been provided. \n\nFinally, using consumer background tools on the internet I was easily able to find that the original name and address of the debtor still exists."]},"sort":[6.1199636,"6644110"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":31,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":31}]}},"product":{"doc_count":31,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":17,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":17}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":31,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":10}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Charged too much interest","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Add-on products and services","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":31,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":30},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":31,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":18},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":11},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":31,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":31}]}},"company":{"doc_count":31,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":8},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CL Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Kohn Law Firm S.C.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Security Credit Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicer under contract with Federal Student Aid","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":31,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":8},{"key":"MI","doc_count":5},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"MO","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"WV","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":31,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":11},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":31,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[6.119568,"6644110"]}}}